Writ Petition No. 8758 of 2021 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
Hence we pass the following order :-(a)The writ petition is partly allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner’s real sistersMahananda and Shivkanta have got validity certificates. The claim ofpetitioner’s real brother Somnath was although invalidated, however, by judgment dated 01/08/2023 in Writ Petition No.9296/2023, this Court quashed the order of invalidation and he is…
Judgment
8758.21wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8758 OF 2021 Laxmibai D/o Shankar Totewad, Age: 32 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Aurala, Tq. Naigaon (Kh.),Dist. Nanded….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee, AurangabadThrough its Member Secretary, Aurangabad3.The Chief Post Master General, Mumbai, CST, Fort, Mumbai4.The Post Master General, CST, Fort, Mumbai5.The Senior Superintendentof Post Offices, Mumbai City, East Division, Dadar, Mumbai ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitionerMs S. S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2Mr S. S. Deve, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5 CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 7th March, 2025
8758.21wp(2) JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the parties.
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 22/07/2021,passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate VerificationCommittee, Aurangabad, invalidating her claim for ‘Mannervarlu’Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of the MaharashtraScheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and SpecialBackward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteCertificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001. By theimpugned order, the committee has observed that the petitioner hasfailed to establish her claim on the basis of the documentary evidenceas well as on account of failure to prove affinity with ‘Mannervarlu’scheduled tribe.
Mr S. M. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitionersubmits that the committee has adopted erroneous approach inconsidering probative value of the documentary evidence. He submits
8758.21wp(3) that in view of the validation of claim of petitioner’s real brotherSomnath Shankarrao Totewad, by virtue of judgment dated 01/08/2023in Writ Petition No.9296/2023, the petitioner is also entitled forvalidation of her claim. He then submits that the petitioner’s two otherreal sisters Mahananda Shankarrao Totewad and Shivkanta ShankarraoTotewad have also got certificates of validity. He, therefore, submitsthat in view of the validities in favour of petitioner’s real brother andsisters, the petitioner is also entitled for validation of her claim.
Per contra, Ms S. S. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondentNos.1 and 2 and Mr S. S. Deve, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3to 5 oppose the petition and justify the impugned order. They submitthat the impugned order is a reasoned order after considering all thedocumentary evidence and applying affinity test. By referring to theaffidavit-in-reply dated 12/11/2021, respondent Nos.3 to 5 submit thatin view of invalidation of the petitioner’s claim, the petitioner has toface necessary consequences with respect to service with respondentNos.3 to 5.
We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.
8758.21wp(4)
Operative part
It is pertinent to note that the petitioner’s real sistersMahananda and Shivkanta have got validity certificates. The claim ofpetitioner’s real brother Somnath was although invalidated, however, by judgment dated 01/08/2023 in Writ Petition No.9296/2023, this Court quashed the order of invalidation and he is held entitled forvalidation of his tribe claim. Since relationship of the petitioner withher real sisters Mahananda and Shivkanta and with real brotherSomnath, who are validity holders is not disputed, the petitioner isentitled for validation of her tribe claim in view of the settled positionof law as laid down in the matters of Maharashtra Adiwasi ThakurJamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others,[AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657] and Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs.Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others,[2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401], albeit making it co-terminus with the validityof her real brother Somnath. Hence we pass the following order :-
(a)The writ petition is partly allowed.
(b)The impugned order dated 22/07/2021, passed byrespondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside.
(c)Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to issue tribevalidity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to the
8758.21wp(5) ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe in a prescribed format, whichshall be co-terminus with the validity of Somnath ShankarraoTotewad. (d)The petitioner shall not claim any equities.
Rule is made partly absolute in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence we pass the following order :-(a)The writ petition is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Issuance and Verification of CasteCertificate Act, 2000.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.