Rohan s/o Vijay Yerawad v. 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2
Case Details
1 WP/ 12737 /2021+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 12737 OF 2021 Rohan s/o Vijay Yerawad …Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad Through Its Member Secretary. The Sub-Divisional Officer, 3. Nanded, District Nanded. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9077 OF 2021 Shrijit S/o Rajkumar Yerawad …Petitioner 1. 2. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. The Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2021 Shruti D/o Balaji Yerawad VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...Respondents …Petitioner 2 WP/ 12737 /2021+ 2. The Commissioner & Competent Authority, Government of Maharashtra, State Common Entrance Test Cell, 8th Floor, New Exclesior Building, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 3. The Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9089 OF 2021 Sakshi D/o Rajkumar Yerawad …Petitioner 1. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Commissioner & Competent Authority, Government of Maharashtra, State Common Entrance Test Cell, 8th Floor, New Exclesior Building, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. 3. The Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9094 OF 2021 Krishna s/o Balaji Yerawad …Petitioner 1. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, 3 WP/ 12737 /2021+ Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 12688 OF 2021 Vishal s/o Vijay Yerawad …Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through through Its Member Secretary. The Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition Officer, P.T. and MIW No. 2, Nanded Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
Legal Reasoning
Since there is no dispute about all these petitioners being blood relatives from the paternal side and there is no dispute about the genealogy coupled with the fact that they have been relying upon the same validities of the blood relations, we propose to decide all these petitions together to avoid rigmarole. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently submits that the petitioners family ‘members and blood relatives have been issued validity certificates right from the year 2005. He refers to the following validities : 5 WP/ 12737 /2021+ Name Relation Date of validity Balaji Narayan Yerawad Cousin Uncle 29-01-2005 Govind Mahajan Yerawad Cousin Uncle 11-10-2008 Vijay Digambar Yerawad Sham Digambar Yerawad Father Uncle 31-05-2006 29-06-2011 Sainath Vishwambhar Yerawad Cousin Uncle 20-09-2010 Swapnil Omprakash Yerawad Cousin Uncle 13-08-2010 Sham Dattatraya Yerawad Cousin Uncle 29-06-2011 Rajkumar Narayan Yerawad Cousin Uncle 26-07-2010 4. Referring to these many validities, the learned advocate for the petitioners submits that all these validities were issued from time to time by following due process and in accordance with the rules. The committee had no sound reason to discard these validities. Even if it intends to now re-open these validities and undertake a fresh scrutiny, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of these many validity certificates till the time those are not confiscated and cancelled in accordance with law and the provision of section 7 of the Act. 5. The learned advocate submits that the petitioners are ready to run the risk of getting a conditional validity and their fate would depend upon the matters being re-opened by the committee. 6. The learned AGP opposes the petitions. He submits that the committee has given detail reasons for not giving the benefit of the validities to the petitioners. The original validity holder is Balaji Narayanrao Yerawad. His validity is based on the validity certificates of 6 WP/ 12737 /2021+ couple of individuals who were not related to him by blood from the paternal side and were related to him from the maternal side. He would submit that the validity certificate of Sham Dattatraya Yerawad was issued by the committee headed by one Mr. V.S. Patil. The government had found rampant irregularities in the functioning of that committee in the matter of issuance of validity certificates and has instructed the committees to undertake re-scrutiny of the validity certificates issued by that committee. 7. The learned AGP would then submit that in the matters of validity holders Rajkumar Narayan, Sainath Vishwambhar, Swapnil Omprakash, the then committee was not properly constituted. One of its three members was a Law Officer who was not competent to function as its secretary. 8. The learned AGP would then submit that there are several contrary entries describing the family members as Munurvar. All these contrary entries were not disclosed to the committees while obtaining validity certificates and the petition be dismissed. 9. As has been laid down in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326,, if there is no dispute about the relationship between the claimants and the validity 7 WP/ 12737 /2021+ holders as blood relations from the paternal side and if the validity certificates are issued by following due process, the benefit is to be extended to the claimants. As can be seen from the impugned orders, the committee has refused to grant benefit of the validity certificate of Balaji Narayan Yerawad on the ground that he was issued validity based on the validity certificates of two individuals who were not related to him from the paternal side. But conspicuously the committee has not observed that the validity certificate was not issued in accordance of rules. 10. We have perused the order passed by the then committee while granting the validity certificate to Balaji from the original record made available to us by the learned AGP. It does appear that Balaji had produced and relied upon the validity certificates of those two individuals Anil Govindrao Machewad and Uttam Govindram Sivangaonkar. However, it is not that the committee had passed that order only on the basis of these two validities. Several other circumstances and documents were also considered by the then committee while directing validity certificates to be issued to Balaji. If that be so, it cannot be said that Balaji had obtained the validity certificate illegally. 11. As far as the validity granted to Sham Dattatraya Yerawad, the committee is questioning its correctness and validity only on the 8 WP/ 12737 /2021+ ground that it was issued by the committee headed by Mr. V.S. Patil. We are afraid, such a stand will not be available to the committee unless it is able to undertake a fresh scrutiny and is able to demonstrate as to why it should be out-rightly discarded. At least, the impugned orders do not contain any observations in that regard. 12. Again, as far as the validities of Rajkumar Narayan, Sainath Vishwambhar, Swapnil Omprakash, the very stand of the committee to refuse to consider these validities on the ground that one of the three members of the committee was not competent to function as secretary, is clearly unsustainable. The committee which had issued these validity certificates itself cannot raise the issue regarding its composition, more so, when according to rule 9(3) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, the decision of the committee is to be taken by majority. The committee cannot be allowed to question its own composition. 13. So far as the alleged fraud or misrepresentation is concerned, admittedly, those validity holders who had allegedly obtained the validities by resorting to such vitiating circumstances are not before us. When the committee has now taken a decision to re-open their validities, those aspects will be directly and substantially in issue before the committee as to if there was indeed any 9 WP/ 12737 /2021+ misrepresentation or fraud while obtaining the validities. Any comment made by us in that regard would have a bearing on that enquiry and is likely to cause a serious prejudice to those validity holders. Therefore, we are consciously avoiding to discuss the circumstances being relied upon by the committee in the impugned order touching the alleged misrepresentation or fraud. 14. Considering the above aspects, so long as the validity certificates being relied upon by the petitioners are not confiscated and cancelled under section 7 of the Act, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit more particularly when they are ready to accept validities conditionally. 15. (i) (ii) Hence, the following order :
Arguments
... Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.9094/2021; WP No.9089/2021; WP No.9086/2021; WP No.9077/2021 : Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat Advocate for the petitioners in WP No.12688/2021 and WP No.12737/2021 : Mr. Madhur A. Golegaonkar AGP for Respondents/State in all petitions : Mr. S. G. Sangale ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 02 AUGUST 2023 4 WP/ 12737 /2021+ ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : By way of these separate writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are related by blood from the paternal side, are challenging the two separate orders; one passed in the matter of petitioner - Rohan Vijay Yerawad and Vishal Vijay Yerawad and the other passed in common in the matters of petitioners Shrijit Rajkumar Yerawad, Sakshi Rajkumar Yerawad, Shruti Balaji Yerawad, thereby confiscating and cancelling their tribe certificates of Mannervarlu scheduled tribe under section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 (Act). 2.
Decision
The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders dated 27.08.2021 and 02.08.2021 passed by the Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set aside. The Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioners namely Rohan Yerawad; Shrijit Yerawad; Shruti Yerawad; Sakshi Yerawad; Krishna Yerawad and Vishal Yerawad, as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe, which shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Committee in the matter which it intends to reopen in respect of the validity holders. 10 WP/ 12737 /2021+ (iii) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/