RAVINDRA v. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE
Legal Reasoning
(( 3 ))1000-WP-10664-20193.In case for admission to B.Tech. (Computer Science)given to the petitioner from Centralised quota, the validitycertificate is not mandatory, then the admission of thepetitioner shall not be cancelled till next date.”4.On 18.06.2025, we passed the following order:-“1.Time and again this Court has expressed in manyjudgments that the committee members pass orders as per theirfancies. The present case is of a girl student who hadapproached this Court in 2019, at the age of 19 years with herbiological brother who then was 23 years as a student, sincethey have been refused validity certificates of belonging to theThakur Scheduled Tribe community though their biologicalfather, biological paternal uncle, biological paternal aunt andbiological paternal cousin brother and sister, have been grantedvalidity certificates by the committee. These validity certificatesare untouched till today. No show cause notice has been issuedto any of them for reopening of their cases.2.The committee claims that it has noticed a 1941 entry inthe present Petitioner’s case and, therefore, by judgment dated14.08.2019, the claims of these two Petitioners has beenrejected. In the last six years, no notice is issued to the validityholders though the committee claims that they have noticed anadverse record. 3.We could have imposed heavy costs on the members ofthe committee for having behaved in such fashion. However,the learned AGP submits that they may be given an opportunity.4.Let the three committee members whose names appearon the last page of the impugned judgment, remain present inthe Court on 20.06.2025 at 2.30 p.m.” 3 of 8 (( 4 ))1000-WP-10664-20195.We are informed that both the Petitioners have completedtheir education. Petitioner No.1 has acquired employment in aprivate industry. Petitioner No.2 has not taken up any job.6.The Government has tendered an affidavit in reply dated20.06.2025. 7.The learned AGP has strenuously highlighted theimpugned order of the Committee and submits that notwithstandingthat the Petitioners (who are siblings), their biological father, theirbiological paternal uncle, biological paternal aunt and biologicalpaternal cousin brother and sister, have been granted validitycertificates, an old document dating back to 1941 was found whileinvestigating the petitioners’ cases. The said entry indicates ‘HinduMaratha’ and one entry is with regard to ‘Thakur Bhat’, which falls inthe open category. Rest of the entries are pertaining to Thakur. Sincethe Committee noticed these two documents, the claims of thePetitioners was rejected on 14.08.2019. Notices were issued to all thevalidity holders in 2021, for re-opening their cases.8.The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that thePetitioners’ father stays in N-6, CIDCO, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, 4 of 8 (( 5 ))1000-WP-10664-2019for the last 40 years. No notice has been sent on the said address. Anotice was sent on his native place address, which is village Babra,Taluka Phulambri, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. The learnedAGP submits that these validity holders are not appearing before theCommittee and hence, the Committee has not progressed with the re-opened cases.9.We find that the above fact situation is practicallyidentical to the facts appearing in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others, MANU/MH/4098/2018. Paragraph Nos. 2,3, 4 and 8 in Shweta (supra), read as under:-“2. On the earlier occasion, we found that though thepetitioner produced credible evidence in the form of certificatesof validity issued to her real uncle Govind Sambhaji Isankarand which concededly has been issued way back on 5thDecember 2005 and another certificate of validity dated 5thSeptember 2006 to his cousin uncle Ramdas Sambhaji Isankar,the Committee finds that the certificate of validity issued to thereal uncle Govind, is not free from suspicion. It is held by theCommittee in the impugned order that a notice to show causehas been issued to said Govind on 14th September 2017, callingupon him to show cause as to why this certificate of validityshould not be cancelled as its issuance is vitiated by fraud orsuppression of material facts by the said Govind.3. On such a finding being rendered by the Committee,we called upon the learned AGP on the earlier two occasions toproduce the record. We also indicated to the learned AGP as tohow the certificate of validity is denied to the petitioner thoughshe has established her relationship with the said Govind andonly on the ground that a show cause notice has been issued,but no proceedings in furtherance thereof came to be initiated 5 of 8 (( 6 ))1000-WP-10664-2019till date. The learned AGP sought time to file an affidavit.Now, the Joint Commissioner, Schedule Tribe ScrutinyCommittee, Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply. That istaken on record. The said affidavit admits that the certificate ofvalidity has been issued to her real uncle and cousin uncle ofthe petitioner. The affidavit admits that the petitioner reliesheavily on these two documents, but clarifies that there is asuppression detected from the original record of the certificateholder and that is how a show cause notice has been issued toGovind. The show cause notice could not be taken to its logicalend on account of the huge pendency of cases before thisCommittee. In all, 7,000 matters were pending on the datewhen this Joint Commissioner took charge and he has reducedthe pendency by 2500 cases being decided. In thecircumstances, he says that appropriate orders and directionsbe issued by this Court.4 We are not impressed by this explanation and thejustification not to proceed against a person who hasperpetrated a fraud on the public. If it is a serious allegationand which is termed as fraud, then, it should have been takento its logical end. Mere issuance of a show cause notice in thepresent case would not suffice for there are two certificates ofvalidity relied upon. The only reason assigned in the impugnedorder to discard them, cannot be sustained. The justification inthe above affidavit is also not enough to straightaway discardthe certificates of validity issued in the family. It is concededthat other reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot besupported in law.8.This order does not prevent the Committee fromproceeding against Govind in accordance with law andneedless to further clarify that in the event Govind's claim isinvalidated, all the consequences shall be taken by thepetitioner as well.”10.As such, the situation as it exists today, is that the validityholders are enjoying their status and these two Petitioners are refusedthe Thakur Scheduled Tribe validity certificates on the ground that 6 of 8 (( 7 ))1000-WP-10664-2019two documents indicate adverse entries. The law laid down by thisCourt in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste CertificateScrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, wouldapply to their cases.11.In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed.The impugned order dated 14.08.2019, stands quashed and set aside.Let the validity certificates be issued to the Petitioners within thirtydays from today, on the condition that the Committee shall proceedwith the reopened cases by issuing appropriate notices. Allcontentions of the stakeholders are kept open. If any of the validityholders suffers invalidation, the same consequences would besuffered by these two Petitioners and their cases are permitted to bereviewed.12.Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.13.The learned Government Pleader submits that time hascome for giving some guidelines to the Committee members to decidethe reopened cases within a time-frame. On the one hand, suchreopened cases keep on lingering for several reasons and on the otherhand, their children or blood relatives who approach the Committee 7 of 8 (( 8 ))1000-WP-10664-2019for validity certificates, are deprived of such certificates on the groundthat the cases of their relatives are being opened.14. We have noticed that the Committee, on the one hand,reopens the cases and then keeps such cases in cold storage, and onthe other hand, the next generation which claims validity certificates,is deprived of the same on the ground of either pendency of thereopened cases or on the allegation that earlier validities wereerroneously granted. We are also conscious of the fact that theseCommittees are over-burdened with enormous proposals andhundreds are subjected to time-frame orders of the High Court.15.We, therefore, find it appropriate to suggest that theCommittee in such matters should set a time frame of one year andensure that the reopened cases are concluded within such period. Wewould appreciate if the State Government acts on this suggestion andissues certain directions and suitably amends the rules. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ]SMS 8 of 8
Arguments
1000-WP-10664-2019.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD1000 WRIT PETITION NO. 10664 OF 20191.Radhika d/o Manoj SuradkarAge – 19 years, Occ. Student,R/o. Plot No.6, Raj Apartment,Town Centre 29/G, CIDCO,Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad2.Nairuti S/o Manoj SuradkarAge – 23 years, Occu. Student,R/o. As above… PETITIONERS VERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraDepartment of Tribal Development,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32Through its Secretary 2.The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, AurangabadThrough its Member Secretary 3.National Institute of Technology, Karnataka,Surathkal, P.O. Srinivasnagar,Mangalore – 575025Through its Principal … RESPONDENTS.…Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader a/w Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGPfor Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State .…CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:20.06.2025 1 of 8 (( 2 ))1000-WP-10664-2019ORAL JUDGMENT (Per :- RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finallyby the consent of the parties.2.The Petitioners have put forth the following prayers:-“(B)To quash and set aside the impugned decision and orderof the Committee dated 14.8.2019 invalidating Tribe Claims ofthe Petitioners (Exhibit-K) and declare that Petitioners belongto ‘Thakur – Scheduled Tribe’ by issuing appropriate writ,orders, or directions as the case may be;(C) To direct the Respondent No.3 not to cancel admission ofthe Petitioner No.1 to Computer Science & Engineering (4Years, Bachelor of Technology) Course on the basis ofimpugned decision of the Committee and allow her to completethe studies in said Course subject to final outcome of thepresent Writ Petition by issuing appropriate writ, orders, ordirections as the case may be.”3.On 28.08.2019, this Court [Coram: S. V. Gangapurwala(as His Lordship then was) and Anil S. Kilor, JJ.], passed thefollowing order:-“1.The tribe claim of the petitioner is invalidated. It issubmitted that petitioner no.1 has been given admission fromcentralised quota in June 2019.2.Notice to respondents, returnable on 9.10.2019. LearnedA.G.P. waives notice for respondents no.1 and 2. Humdastallowed. 2 of 8