High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 9162 / 2019+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9162 OF 2019Janhavi D/o Satish Toatwar.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development 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 0013] Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurnagabad4] The Registrar, Shri Guru Gobind Singhji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Vishnupuri, Nanded.. RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9157 OF 2019Satish S/o Bhumanna Toatwar.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Legal Reasoning
2 WP / 9162 / 2019+ Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurnagabad3] The Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parishad, Nanded4] Rajasthani Education Society, Through its Secretary, Adarsh Vidyalaya Higher Primary School, Tilak Nagar, Nanded.. Respondents...Advocate for petitioner (in both WPs) : Mr. C.R. ThoratAddl.GP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.S. PatilAdvocate for respondent no. 2 : Mr. M.D. Narwadkar (WP/9162/2019)Advocate for respondent no. 3 : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar (WP/9157/2019)Respondent no. 4 in both WPs served - absent... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 26 JUNE 2024ORAL ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard both the sides.2.The petitioners are impugning the common judgment andorder dated 16-07-2023 whereby their tribe claims have beeninvalidated thereby confiscating and cancelling the certificates. 3.One of these three individuals, namely, Sagar SatishTotawar in writ petition no. 9218 of 2019 by the order dated 1 August2019 was directed to be issued with a certificate of validity. Followingis the order :- 3 WP / 9162 / 2019+ “1. The tribe claim of the petitioner as Mannervarlu,Scheduled Tribe is invalidated.2. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitsthat two real paternal uncles of the petitioner namely Suniland Balaji are issued with the validity certificate ofMannervarlu, Scheduled Tribe. The school entry of thepetitioner, his father, grandfather record caste asMannervarlu. There are no contra entries on record. Still thecommittee has invalidated the tribe claim on the basis of therecord of some other persons who are not related to thepetitioner.3. Mr. Patil, learned A.G.P. submits that there are contraentries on record. In the school record of grandfather of thepetitioner Bhimrao (Bhumanna) caste recorded asMannervarlu is suspicious. The same appears in thedifferent ink. According to the learned A.G.P. the petitioneralso failed in the affinity test. The show cause notices areissued to the validity holders relied by the petitioner.4. The relationship of the petitioner and his paternal unclesSunil and Balaji is not disputed. It is also not disputed thatthe Sunil and Balaji are issued with the validity certificate ofMannervarlu, Scheduled Tribe.5. It appears that school record of the petitioner's fatherrecord caste as Mannervarlu. The vigilance was conductedat the time of issuance of validity to the Sunil wherein theentry of the grandfather of the petitioner Bhimrao(Bhumanna) of the year 1955 was also considered. In thepresent case, it is observed that the ink recording the casteis different. The show cause notice is already issued to thevalidity holders.
Decision
4 WP / 9162 / 2019+ 6. Considering the above, we pass the following order:ORDERi. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.ii. The committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitionerof Mannervarlu, Scheduled Tribe. The same would be subject tothe decision that would be taken by the committee in theproceedings that are reopened of the validity holders relied bythe petitioner. In case, the validity certificates issued to thevalidity holders relied by the petitioner are canceled, then thepetitioner would not be entitled for any equity. The present orderwould be limited to the extent of the petitioner. As far as thecases of other persons decided by the impugned order areconcerned, the same would be considered after theproceedings of the validity holders are concluded.7. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.”4.It appears that in view of the rider put by the division bench,these two petitions wherein the petitioners sail in the same boat asSagar Satish Totawar, have been kept pending so as to enable thecommittee to take up and decide the matters in respect of the validityholders which the committee had already re-opened. For almost five(5) years, the committee has not been able to decide those re-openedmatters.5.Learned AGP strenuously submits that in fact, the re-opened matters were closed for orders way back in the year 2020,however, in view of the bifurcation of the committees betweenAurangabad and Kinwat, the matter was lost sight of. It can be 5 WP / 9162 / 2019+ concluded in near future provided the individuals therein / validityholders co-operate with the committee.6.It appears that those validity holders have even impugnedthe process of re-opening and the show cause notice issued to them byfiling writ petition no. 2376 of 2020. Interim relief was granted on06-02-2020 which reads thus :-“. Issue notice before admission to the respondents. Thelearned Addl. G.P. waives notice for both respondents andseeks time. Stand over to 25.02.2020.2. In the meantime the petitioners may file reply to theshow cause notice. The proceeding may proceed furtherbefore the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 cantake decision also, however, if the decision is adverse tothe interest of petitioners, same shall not be implementedtill the next date.”7.It is quite apparent from the chronology of the events thatthe committee has not been able to decide the reopened matters foralmost 5 years. Even otherwise, the decision to be taken would besubject to the interim relief dated 06-02-2020. In view of such peculiarstate-of-affairs, in our considered view, when the selfsame order hasalready undergone scrutiny of this order in the matter of Sagar SatishTotawar, even these two petitions can be disposed of with the samedirections.8.Writ petitions are allowed partly. 6 WP / 9162 / 2019+ 9.Impugned order is quashed and set aside.10.The committee shall issue certificates of validity to thepetitioners of ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe. Their validities would besubject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee hasalready re-opened. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/