High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 9881 / 2024+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2024Isha Chandrakant KantiwarAge : 18 years, Occu. Education,R/o. Deloor, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded.. Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 and another.. Respondents ANDWRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2024Divya Chandrakant KantiwarAge : 23 years, Occu. Education,R/o. Deloor, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded.. Petitioner VersusThe State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32 and another.. Respondents...Advocate for petitioners in both WPs : Mr. Pratap V. JadhavarAddl. GP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.S. Patil... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 09 SEPTEMBER 2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGPwaives service for the respondents. 2 WP / 9881 / 2024+ 2. The petitioners are real sisters inter se and are challengingsimilar orders passed by the respondent - scrutiny committee in theirrespective matters, thereby refusing to validate their ‘Mannervarlu’scheduled tribe certificates. Though the orders are separate, thosehave been passed on the same date and by recording exactly thesame reasons.3. Considering the urgency, we are disposing of thesepetitions finally at the stage of admission with the concurrence of boththe sides, by this common judgment and order. 4. We have heard both the sides. 5. Petitioners are relying upon the certificate of validity oftheir real paternal aunt - Shobha Iranna Kantiwar issued on20-05-2008. Additionally, the committee on its own, has referred toseveral other individuals possessing certificates of validities byobserving that they all are related to them by blood. The committeehas refused to extend benefit of these validities by observing thatShobha was granted validity based on the validity of individuals notrelated to her by blood from paternal side. Even Swapnil SudhakarraoKantiwar is similarly alleged to have obtained validity by relying uponmaternal side relatives. 3 WP / 9881 / 2024+ 6. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that inthe light of exigency, the petitioners are in urgent need of certificates ofvalidity to secure admission in the current round and even are ready toface the consequences as contemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs.State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017).7. He would submit that Shobha was granted validity byfollowing due process of law and even if the committee has decided tore-visit her validity for the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders,so long as her validity is not confiscated and cancelled, the petitionerscannot be deprived of the benefit.8. Per contra, learned AGP would take us through the originalfiles of some of the validity holders including that of Shobha. He wouldsubmit that she was granted certificate of validity merely for asking. There was no documentary proof. Benefit of validities of maternal siderelatives was extended. No reasoned order was passed. Her schoolrecord of 1968 was the only document relied upon by the committee. In the absence of even iota of material, she was held entitled to have acertificate of validity and its benefit cannot be extended to thepetitioners.9. Learned AGP would submit that based on Shobha’svalidity, several other individuals / family members could obtain 4 WP / 9881 / 2024+ certificates of validity. No threadbare scrutiny was undertaken in thematters of any of the earlier validity holders. During the vigilanceenquiry conducted in the present matters, it was revealed that thefavourable record was of recent origin. Contrary record was of earlierpoint of time, having greater probative value and the committee hasreferred to it in great detail in the impugned order. Some record ismanipulated and even several school entries could be traced whereinpetitioners’ blood relatives were described as ‘Munurvar’. The oldestentry of 1953 of petitioners’ grandfather - Maroti Santuka Kantewad of29-12-1953, was turned out to be a forged one. The petitioners cannotbe allowed to take benefit of the fraud perpetrated by their aunt -Shobha in obtaining validity. 10. We have considered the rival submissions and pursuedthe peprs.11. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that Shobha whohappens to be petitioners’ aunt is not the first validity holder. She wasissued with a certificate of validity in the year 2018, whereas SwapnilSudhakar Kantiwar referred to by the committee on its own, in theimpugned order, had obtained the validity on 03-10-2015. His originalfile has not been made available to us. If Shobha was granted validitybased on the validity of Swapnil, the committee ought to haveundertaken scrutiny of the circumstances in which he was held entitled 5 WP / 9881 / 2024+ to have a certificate of validity. The committee, in an omnibus manner,has discarded all these validities including that of Shobha and Swapnilon the ground that those were obtained by concealing contrary recordwhich the committee has reproduced in the impugned order. It isapparent that the committee is seeking to take exception to thesevalidities on the premise of having been obtained allegedly by resortingto fraud. 12. Needless to state that allegations of fraud are quite seriousand will have to be proved to the hilt, by undertaking due process oflaw. When it is apparent that the then committees had issuedcertificates of validity by undertaking vigilance enquiry and by passinga reasoned order, may be cryptic, it cannot be said that they were notissued with certificates of validity by following due process of law. 13. Incidentally, we could notice that in the matter of NagmaniVyankat Kantewad, the then committee had expressly opined that shecould get through the affinity test which would be an additionalcircumstance in support of the petitioners. 14. The petitioners cannot be deprived of having the benefit ofthose validities which are still intact, by following the principles laiddown in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Decision
6 WP / 9881 / 2024+ Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023SCC Online SC 326. 15. The writ petitions are allowed partly.16.The impugned judgments and orders dated 06-09-2024passed by respondent no. 2 – Scrutiny Committee are quashed and setaside.17.Since the petitioners are required to submit the certificatesof validity to secure admission within stipulated period, the respondentno. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue tribe validitycertificates to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduledtribe in the prescribed proforma.18.The validities shall be co-terminus with the validity of theearlier holders.19.The petitioners shall not claim equities.20.Learned AGP and the Law Officer of the Committee whoare present, shall ensure that the decision is immediatelycommunicated to the Committee.21.Rule is made absolute accordingly. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/