High Court
Facts
1 WP / 6373 / 2024+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 6373 OF 20241] Kapil Ashok Akulwar Age : 31 years, Occu. Student R/o. Deglur, Tq. Deglur, Dist. Nanded2] Swati Ashok Akulwar, Age : 26 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Deglur, Tq. Deglur, Dist. Nanded.. Petitioners Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat, Head Quarter, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R) .. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6374 OF 20241] Puja Ramesh Akulwar Age : 31 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Deglur, Tq. Deglur, Dist. Nanded2] Nandkumar Ramesh Akulwar, Age : 29 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Deglur, Tq. Deglur, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioners Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat, Head Quarter, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R) .. Respondents 2 WP / 6373 / 2024+ ...Advocate for petitioners in both WPs : Mr. P.V. JadhavarAGP for the respondents no. 1 and 2 : Mr. K.N. Lokhande (WP/6373/2024)AGP for the respondents no. 1 and 2 : Mr. K.S. Patil (WP/6374/2024)... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 26 JULY 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :The petitioners are challenging the common order ofinvalidation and directing confiscation and cancellation of their‘Mannarvarlu’ scheduled tribe certificates.2. At the joint request of the parties, in view of the urgency,we have heard both the sides finally at the stage of admission.3. The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit thatpetitioners’ real sister - Jyoti possesses a certificate of validity and theycannot be deprived of deriving its benefit irrespective of the fact thatthe committee has decided to undertake re-enquiry into her validity byresorting to review. He would submit that the petitioners are ready torun the risk of facing the consequences as contemplated in ShwetaBalaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (writ petitionno. 6320 of 2017) and they may be granted the certificates of validitysubject to the final outcome of Jyoti’s matter which the committee hasdecided to re-open.
Legal Reasoning
3 WP / 6373 / 2024+ 4. The learned advocate would submit that in fact, in the lightof the decision of this Court in the matter of Hrushikesh Garud Vs.State of Maharashtra; (2022) 1 SCC 207 and Rajesh Umbarje andothers Vs. State of Maharashtra (writ petition no. 5364 of 2023), thecommittee has no power to review its order.5. Independently, the learned advocate would submit thatthere are abundant entries in the school, birth and the revenue recordshowing the petitioners’ relation as ‘Mannervarlu’. Few isolated andstray contrary entries cannot be allowed to outweigh such abundantfavourable record. The committee has taken a pedantic view. Itsobservations are perverse and arbitrary. It has applied area restrictionand even has resorted to affinity test which it could not have legallydone and the impugned judgment and order be quashed and setaside. 6. Per contra, the learned AGP would submit that thedecision of the committee is plausible one. It has demonstrated as tohow there are several contrary entries of the blood relations whereinthey have been described as Munurvar, Munurkapu and Phulmali. Even there is record to demonstrate that some of the favourable entriesare in fact a result of some manipulation wherein either the originalentry has been replaced or manipulated. After conducting such 4 WP / 6373 / 2024+ threadbare scrutiny, the committee has taken a plausible view aboutpetitioners having failed to substantiate their claims. 7. The learned AGP would further submit that petitioners’sister - Jyoti had obtained the certificate of validity by resorting tofraud. She was not granted the certificate of validity by due process oflaw. There was no reasoned order. She had concealed the fact thatclaim of her paternal uncle Balaji Marotirao Akulwar was invalidated bythe then committee on 15-05-2000. She had also concealed severalcontrary entries which the committee has been able to reveal byresorting to vigilance enquiry as mentioned in the impugned order. Even Balaji Marotirao Akulwar himself had resorted to fraud. In spite ofearlier invalidation, he had obtained fresh tribe certificate andconcealing earlier decision of invalidation which had reached finality upto the High Court, could get his second certificate validated. Thus, hewould submit that since petitioners’ sister - Jyoti had resorted tosuppression of material facts, benefit of her validity has been rightlydeclined to be extended to them. Even the petitioners themselvesought to have but did not disclose invalidation of Balaji MarotiraoAkulwar while filling in form ‘F’ as a part of the proposals. 8.The learned AGP would submit that in similar set of factsand circumstances in the matter of Chaitnya D/o. Sanjay Palekar (writpetition no. 8531 of 2022, by order dated 24-07-2023) this Court has 5 WP / 6373 / 2024+ refused to extend the benefit of the validities obtained by fraud and haddismissed the petition. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe record of even the original files are made available to us in thematters of petitioner - Kapil, Swati and that of Balaji Marotirao Akulwar. 10. It is trite, as has been submitted by the learned AGP, fraudvitiates every solemn act. However, the common thread and reasoningresorted to by the committee attributes such fraud to Balaji MarotiraoAkulwar and Jyoti who are not before us. We will have to be cautiousand conscious of the fact that any observations made by us qua theinference drawn by the committee in the impugned orders regardingfraud perpetrated by them, could have a potential of having somebearing in their matters which the committee has decided to re-open. We, therefore, feel it appropriate that it is better left for the committee toponder upon and decide the issue which cannot be without extendingan opportunity to both of them, to contest the issue. Needless to statethat they will have to be served with show cause notices and, thereafterheard. Any decision going against them would further be susceptible toa challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read withsection 7(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. It wouldcertainly be a long drawn process. The petitioners who are aspiring tomake careers by undertaking education, cannot be made to wait for the 6 WP / 6373 / 2024+ final conclusion in the matters of the validity holders which are or to bere-opened. 11. True it that in the matter of Chaitnya Sanjay Palekar(supra), we had undertaken scrutiny in respect of a similar fraudpractised by the validity holders being relied on by the petitioner -Chaitnya. However, it is important to note that in that matter, petitioner- Chaitnya’s father and his paternal uncle whose validities he wasbanking upon, had obtained certificates of validities by practisingfraud. They had faced invalidities in earlier time in the year 1987 and1989 respectively. Suppressing such earlier invalidation both of themobtained fresh tribe certificates and could get those validated withoutdisclosing earlier invalidation. Since according to us, it was a patentfraud practised by the validity holders, we had refused to extend itsbenefit to petitioner - Chaitnya.12. In the matter in hand, so far as the alleged fraudperpetrated by one Balaji, going by the genealogy reproduced by thecommittee in the impugned order, though prima facie, he seems to berelated to the petitioner by blood, he is a distant relative. OneLinganna Akulwar is the common ancestor having son Balanna. Thepetitioners and Jyoti are the great grandchildren of Balanna and BalajiMaroti is the grandson of Balanna. 7 WP / 6373 / 2024+ 13.We are merely pointing this out to demonstrate thatenquiry will have to be resorted, to demonstrate that Jyoti who is thereal sister / cousin of these petitioners, was aware about such earlierinvalidation faced by Baljai Marotirao Akulwar. As of now, there isnothing before us to demonstrate that she had knowledge about suchearlier invalidation but had intentionally concealed it. Therefore, for thetime being, even before the allegation regarding Jyoti having practisedfraud do not reach finality, the petitioners cannot be deprived ofderiving the benefit of her validity, more so, when they are ready to facethe consequences as laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar(supra). 14.As far as the statement regarding power of the scrutinycommittee to resort to review in the light of decisions of this Court inthe matters of Hrushikesh Garud and Rajesh Umbarje (supra),wherein it has been held that the committee has no such power, in ourconsidered view, the issue need not be addressed herein. As it is, itwould be a subject matter to be considered and decided in anappropriate proceeding. 15. As regards the parameters to be applied in the light ofobservations of the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 22 ofMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, Jyoti was 8 WP / 6373 / 2024+ granted certificate of validity by undertaking a vigilance enquiry and bya reasoned order. Sufficiency or otherwise of the reasons is not theparameter laid down by Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat (supra).16. In the circumstances, the petitioners deserve to be issuedwith certificates of validity conditionally. 17. Writ petitions are allowed partly.18. Impugned judgment and orders are quashed and setaside.19.The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribevalidity certificates to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without adding anything. Thevalidities shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which thecommittee has decided to re-open.20.The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/