Writ Petition No. 9540 of 2019 · Bombay High Court

9540.19wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9540 OF 2019 Santosh S/o Balajirao MarakwarAge 45 years, occ. ServiceR/o PO Pingal Kautha (Mare)Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded….PETITIONERVERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai2.The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Plot No.10, Sector E-1, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Opp. CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad3.The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of SDO, Bhokar Dist. Nanded4.The Head Master, Jijamata Primary School, Phule Nagar, Nanded. 5. The Education Officer [P], Zilla Parishad, Nanded6.The Chief Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr M. A. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitionerMr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3Mr S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 & 6

9540.19wp(2) CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 11th February, 2025JUDGMENT (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 has assailed the order dated 17/07/2019, passed byrespondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, invalidating petitioner’s claim for ‘Mannervarlu’Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of 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.

The committee has concluded that the petitioner failed toestablish his claim on the basis of documentary evidence, as well asfailed to prove affinity with ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe.

9540.19wp(3)

The impugned order is a common order in the matter ofpetitioner and his son Krushna Santosh Marakwar. The impugnedorder was subject matter of scrutiny in Writ Petition No.9062/2019decided by the Principal Seat of this Court vide judgment dated22/08/2019, by which, the writ petition was partly allowed directingthe respondent/committee to issue validity certificate in favour of Krushna Santosh Marakwar.

The petitioner has relied upon validity certificate of hisreal brother Anandkumar Balaji Marakwar and real sister PragatiBalaji Marakwar, which are filed on record. On the basis of thejudgment in the matter of Krushna Santosh Marakwar (supra), it issubmitted that the petitioner is entitled for validity on the same lines.

Learned A.G.P. Mr V. M. Kagne for respondent Nos.1 to 3and learned advocate Mr S. B. Pulkundwar for respondent Nos.5 and 6opposes the petition by submitting that no reliance can be placed onthe validity of Anandkumar Balaji Marakwar and Pragati BalajiMarakwar since their castes claims were decided without followingdue procedure and by suppressing various documents. It isvehemently submitted that, since the committee has decided to issue

9540.19wp(4) show cause notice to those validity holders, the petitioner cannot bederived any benefit of their validities.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.

It has to be noted that the impugned order was subjectmatter of scrutiny in Writ Petition No.9062/2019, which is finallydecided by judgment dated 22/08/2019. Although it has been pointedout that the committee has decided to initiate proceeding forcancellation of validity certificate of petitioner’s close relatives, thefact remains that the petitioner’s real brother Anandkumar and realsister Pragati have got validities, which are not disturbed as on today.

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk