High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP 9621 24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9621 OF 20241)Pooja s/o Govind Gattuwar,Age 20 years, Occ. Student,R/o. At post Kundalwadi, Tq.Biloli, Dist. Nanded.2)Swapnil s/o Govind Gattuwar,Age 24 years, Occ. Student,R/o. At post Kundalwadi, Tq.Biloli, Dist. Nanded.…PetitionersVERSUS1)The State of Maharashtra,Through its Principal Secretary,Home Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2)The Scheduled Tribe CertificateVerification Committee, Kinwat,Headquarter Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Through Deputy Director (Research)and Member Secretary.…Respondents…Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R.A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1& 2 : Mr. V.M. ChateCORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 04.09.2024ORDER : (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) The petitioners, who are siblings, are challenging the commonjudgment and order of respondent no. 2-scrutiny committee constitutedunder the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, refusing to validate their‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificates.1/6
Legal Reasoning
WP 9621 24.odt2.Since petitioner-Pooja has been allotted a college through NEET-UG(2024) and is supposed to tender certificate of validity latest bytomorrow, we have taken up the matter for final disposal at the stage ofadmission.3.The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that there arenumber of validity holders in the family. Though the petitioners wererelying upon the validity of their father Govind and second degree cousinuncle Rajesh Vyankati Gattuwar, the committee on its own, has traced outand referred to in the impugned order, the validities issued to as many aseight individuals by making observation that even these eight individuals arerelated to the petitioners by blood from the paternal side. He would submitthat the committee has refused to extend benefit of these validities on theground that all those were obtained by concealing the earlier invalidation inthe matter of Potanna Gangadhar Gattuwar on 31.05.2003. He wouldsubmit that the order of invalidation would merely bind the claimantPotanna. It is not a judgment in rem. He would, therefore, submit thatassuming that the invalidation was concealed that would not turn onanything.4.Mr. Thorat would further submit that the committee has refused toextend the benefit of validities also on the ground that some contrary recordwas concealed by the validity holders and the committee has decided toundertake rescrutiny. He would submit that till the time the committee isable to undertake the due process of law and recall the validities, thepetitioners cannot be made to wait at the cost of their career. Once it isnoticed that the validities were issued by following due process of law andby passing a reasoned order, the petitioners are entitled to possess atleast avalidity conditioned upon the final outcome of the matters to be reopenedby the committee.5.Mr. Thorat would, lastly, submit that the petitioners are ready to run2/6 WP 9621 24.odtthe risk of facing the consequences as has been observed in the matter ofShweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no.6320 of 2017) and may be issued with certificates of validity.6.The learned A.G.P., strongly opposes the petition. He would supportthe order and the inference drawn by the committee about the validityholders having resorted to fraud. He would submit that Potanna’sinvalidation was consciously concealed and the subsequent validity holderscould manage to have the validities. It is a fraud which would vitiate allthese validities.7.He would also submit that even contrary record as mentioned by thecommittee in the impugned order was concealed by the validity holders.Had they disclosed it, they would not have been granted certificates ofvalidity.8.The learned A.G.P. would submit that one Krishna VyankannaGattuwar is the first validity holder in the family. He had obtained thecertificate of validity on the basis of validities of maternal side bloodrelatives and that would vitiate his validity.9.We have considered the rival submissions and perused the papers.There is no dispute about the fact that there are several validities in thefamily including that of petitioners’ father Govind.10.Even if the committee has now drawn some inference about themanner in which the validities were obtained and has observed that thosewould be vitiated on the ground of fraud, the committee will have to resortto due process of law for recalling these validities. Since these validityholders are not before us, we refrain from making any comment in respectof the inference of fraud drawn by the committee, as it may cause prejudiceto the validity holders or even the committee. However, the fact remainsthat these validities would hold good till the time they are recalled by3/6 WP 9621 24.odtfollowing due process of law. Obviously, a scrutiny into the circumstances inwhich the validities were granted will have to be looked into in light of theparameters laid down in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC OnlineSC 326.11.Even according to the committee Krishna Vyankanna Gattuwar wasthe first validity holder in the family albeit, the conduct of the committee indirectly suo motu referring to his validity and commenting thecircumstances under which he was held entitled to, has been done,apparently, without giving any intimation to the petitioners. There is noreference about it in the vigilance enquiry report. The conduct of thecommittee to use certain circumstances without allowing the petitionerseven to contest such contrary record is clearly in defiance of theobservations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sayanna Vs. State ofMaharashtra and ors. (2009) 10 SCC 268. If at all the committee wanted touse such record of the other validity holders and was to make comment onthat, the interest of justice would have been met by putting the petitionersto notice that the committee was intending to use such record, and theinferences ought to have been drawn by extending an opportunity to thepetitioners to meet such record digged out by the committee on its own.12.Be that as it may, Krishna’s file made available to us demonstrates thata vigilance enquiry was conducted and by a reasoned order he was heldentitled to have a certificate of validity. True it is, as is being submitted bythe learned A.G.P., the original order is a computer output having printedmaterial but keeping the blanks for inserting the particulars of the evidencein hand. However, in our considered view, when the committee is headed bypersons, who may not be having legal acumen and it is a matter of decisionto be taken by the scrutiny committee which in the matter of Krishna wascomprising of four individuals, it would not be appropriate to expect thecommittee to have written the order as is expected of the officer exercising a4/6 WP 9621 24.odtjudicial power. The original record clearly demonstrates that the schoolrecord was duly verified by the vigilance officer and each of these extractscontain an endorsement of the vigilance officer about having verified it fromthe original record.13.True it is that Krishna had relied upon the validities of the personswho were not related to him by blood from the paternal side. However, theoriginal papers would clearly indicate that even in the vigilance enquiryreport it was expressly indicated that those two individuals Sainath ShivajiGopuwar and Nagesh Dattaram Lakhamawar were Krishna’s maternal sidecousins. The order passed by the committee in Krishna’s matter though isnot an ideal one, it is well neigh clear that a vigilance enquiry wasconducted. There was a detailed report. The school record was collected,duly verified and by recording reasons he was held entitled to have acertificate of validity. The stand of the committee regarding Krishna havingpractised fraud and so was by the other validity holders apart, once it is seenthat he was granted a certificate of validity by following due process of law,the petitioners are entitled to derive its benefit in the light of the decision inthe matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti(supra).14.So far as non disclosure of the earliest invalidation of Potanna, wehave been consistently holding that the orders of invalidation would onlyoperate in personam and not in rem. Those will bind only the individualclaimant. We have been also observing that when it is a matter of proving atribe or caste claim and the burden is cast upon the claimant under Section8 of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, even if a member of the family isunable to discharge the burden, some other family member may be able todo so, by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Allowing suchinvalidation to operate in rem would be hazardous and would put theother blood relatives to a serious prejudice. These claim proceedings cannotbe treated as the claims in representative capacity so as to bind every5/6
Decision
WP 9621 24.odtmember of the family/blood relative. Precisely for this reason, assuming forthe sake of arguments that the validity holders had deliberately concealedinvalidation of Potanna Gangadhar, that would not vitiate the validitiesobtained at a later point of time.15.In the light of above, the impugned order refusing to extend thebenefit of validities to the petitioners is not sustainable in law.16.The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashedand set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to receive certificates ofvalidity of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe in the prescribedformat.17.Though it is almost 6 pm, the petitioner no. 1-Pooja Govind Gattuwarhaving been allotted a college and is supposed to file the certificate ofvalidity latest by tomorrow, we request the respondent-committee, to issueher the certificate of validity during the course of the day. The validitiesshall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee hasdecided to reopen.18.The petitioners shall not claim equities. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)mkd/-6/6