Sainath S/o Dilip Sukre v. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai. The Scheduled Tribe
Case Details
1 WP / 10687 / 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10687 OF 2019 Sainath S/o Dilip Sukre …Petitioner 1. 2. 3. 4. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad. The Dean, Dr. Shankarrao Chavan Govt. Medical College, Nanded, District - Nanded The Registrar, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Dindori Road, Mhasrul/Nashik, Dist. Nashik. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 10659 OF 2019 Dilip S/o Satwaji Sukre …Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralya, Mumbai. 2. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad. The Deputy Director, Health Services, Latur Division, Latur, District : Latur 2 WP / 10687 / 2019 4. The Medical Superintendant, Rural Hospital Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded. ...Respondents
Legal Reasoning
This Court in writ petition no. 9190 of 2019 by the order dated 21-08-2019 has granted conditional validity to Dipika’s real brother Nagraj Parasram Sukre relying upon the earlier validities and following the decision in the matter of Apoorva Vinay Nichale and others Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee no. 1 and others; 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401. Pertinently, while considering the matter of Nagraj (supra), it was brought to the notice of this Court that Dipika’s case was being re-opened by issuing notice to her and even to her first degree cousins who were also the validity holders, namely, Santosh Ramchandra Sukre and Shivaji Shriram Sukre. Till date, in spite of the observations and directions of this Court in the matter of Nagraj, the committee has not been able to take that re-opened enquiries to the logical end within the stipulated period of six months. 5. We are emphasizing this fact to demonstrate that on one hand, the committee is not ready to extend the benefit of the validity certificates issued to the blood relations on the ground that those were obtained either by misrepresentation or by resorting to fraud. However, on the other hand, the committee has not been able to complete the re- opened enquiries in spite of lapse of almost 4 years of passing of the order in the matter of Nagraj. 4 WP / 10687 / 2019 6. True it is that in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, the Supreme Court has laid down the parameters when the benefit of validities of the blood relation can be extended and admits of a circumstance where the validities are not issued in accordance with the rules and the directions in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others; (1997) 5 SCC 437. However, though the committee in the matters in hand, as was the case in the matter of Nagraj, has been seeking to take exception to the validity certificates issued to the blood relations, it has not been able to take further steps in that direction to reach to a final decision. 7. In the circumstances, according to us, the law and the logic demands that the petitioners are allowed to derive the benefit of the validities which are still to be confiscated and cancelled. 8. 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 5 WP / 10687 / 2019 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. 9. In the circumstances, we are inclined to accept the statement of the petitioners. 10. Hence, the following order : (i) (ii)
Arguments
... Advocate for Petitioners in both petitions : Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S. G. Sangale Advocate for Respondent No.4 in WP No. 10687/2019 : Mr. D.P. Deshpande ... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 02 AUGUST 2023 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : By way of these two separate writ petitions, the son and father are putting up a challenge to the common order passed by the respondent - scrutiny committee in a proceeding under section 6 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 (Act) thereby confiscating and cancelling their tribe certificate of Mannervarlu scheduled tribe by invoking the powers under section 7(1) of the Act. 2. We have taken up the matter for final disposal at the admission stage in view of the urgency. 3. At the outset, it is necessary to note that there is no dispute about the genealogy submitted by the petitioner Dilip before the scrutiny committee (Exhibit - B) in writ petition no. 10687 of 2019. Admittedly, Dilip’s another son and petitioner - Sainath’s real brother Mahendra was granted validity certificate by the then scrutiny 3 WP / 10687 / 2019 committee in the year 2010. Dilip’s second degree cousin Dipika Parasram Sukre was also granted validity certificate in the year 2010. 4.
Decision
The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe, which shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the Committee in the matters which it intends to reopen in respect of the validity holders. (iii) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/