High Court
Facts
5(8).WP.10166.24.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD5 WRIT PETITION NO.10166 OF 2024Vaishnavi d/o Ashok Raje … PETITIONER VERSUS 1.The State of Maharashtrathrough its SecretaryTribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee KinwatHead Quarter at Chh. Sambhaji Nagarthrough its Dy. Director (R) Dist. Chh. Sambhaji Nagar… RESPONDENTS …AND8 WRIT PETITION NO.7736 OF 2021Rushikesh s/o Ashok Raje … PETITIONER VERSUS 1.The State of Maharashtrathrough its SecretaryMedical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee Aurangabad, through its Dy. Director (R) Aurangabad3.The Director,Directorate of Technical EducationMaharashtra State, Mumbai4.The Director,Vishwakarma Institute of Technology 666, upper Indira Nagar, Bibwewadi Pune, Dist. Pune5.The Principal,Dayanand Science Junior College, Latur,Dist. Latur … RESPONDENTS ...1/8
Legal Reasoning
5(8).WP.10166.24.odt7. The learned AGP would submit that Dipak was issued with acertificate of validity based on a similar certificate of an individual whowas not related to him by blood from the paternal side, by name MaheshKeshav Shanime. He would also submit that even a forged record of theCourt of Judicial Magistrate, Udgir was relied upon by him of 1356 Fasli.Pursuant to the directions of this Court in the matter of Kum. BalikaDagdu Patakrao Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.; (Writ PetitionNo.4297/2007) the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Latur hadconducted inquiry into the matter of similar certified copies purportedlyof the same 1356 Fasli record. He had reported that all such certifiedcopies were forged and fabricated and even a departmental inquiry wasproposed against the record keeper and a criminal action was alsoproposed against an advocate and another person. He would, therefore,submit that since Dipak was granted validity even relying upon thisforged record showing it to be of a pre-independence period, his validitywould stand vitiated by fraud.8.Lastly, learned AGP would submit that even composition ofthe Committee which granted validity to Dipak was not in accordancewith law, inasmuch as, a research officer who could not have been butwas a part of the Committee which upheld his claim.9.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.10.At the outset, it is necessary to note that some of the4/8 5(8).WP.10166.24.odtsubmissions of the learned AGP are apparently inconsistent with thestand being taken by the Committee while passing the impugned orders.Unlike what is being submitted, the Committee has not entertained anydoubt about these petitioners being related to validity holder Dipak, byblood from the paternal side. Pertinently, the order in the matter ofpetitioner Rushikesh was passed on 08.02.2021, whereas, in the matter ofVaishnavi the impugned order was passed on 30.08.2024. We arepointing out this fact just to demonstrate that though the petitioners aresiblings and have been relying upon validity of Dipak the successivecommittees while passing the impugned orders which are more thanthree years apart, have not been entertaining any doubt about he beingrelated to the petitioners by blood. In view of such state of affairs, whileexercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thesubmission of the learned AGP to this extent being inconsistent with thestand of the Committee in the impugned judgments and orders, cannotbe entertained.11.The Committee is taking exception to the validity of Dipakfor variety of reasons. The basic objection of the Committee is to theeffect that he had practised fraud while obtaining the certificate ofvalidity. Since fraud is a serious allegation which will have to be provedstrictly, as proposed by the Committee, it will have to undertake dueprocess of law to substantiate its perfunctory inference of fraud. It willhave to issue a show cause notice which seems to have been issued to5/8 5(8).WP.10166.24.odthim immediately after the impugned order was passed in the matter ofpetitioner - Rushikesh. However, the Committee has not taken it to thelogical end by completing the process for last more than three years. Ifand when it is able to do that the logical consequences would follow ascontemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra). The petitioners are readyto run that risk. They cannot be made to wait for the Committee tocomplete the process at the cost of their career.12.The fact remains that Dipak possesses a certificate of validityand was so held by the then Committee by following due process of law.As can be seen from his file, a vigilance inquiry was conducted and by areasoned order he was held entitled to have a certificate of validity. Trueit is that he had relied upon validity of a person who was not related tohim by blood from the paternal side. However, it is not that theCommittee had held him entitled to have a validity only on the ground ofvalidity of that individual Mahesh Keshav Shanime. Certain otherdocuments and circumstances were relied upon by the then Committee.13.Similarly, though Dipak had relied upon the certified copy ofthe J.M.F.C. Court, Udgir regarding which there is a report of thePrincipal District Judge in a similar matter, again, it was merely one ofthe circumstances referred to by the Committee while passing the orderin his matter. It was not the decisive piece of evidence albeit it wasreferred to while passing the order.14.Similarly, as far as invalidation of petitioners’ uncle Vijay,6/8 5(8).WP.10166.24.odtallegedly not disclosed by Dipak, we have been consistently holding thatthe orders of invalidation would merely bind the claimant and cannotoperate as a res judicata against the subsequent claimants, for, the formermay not have been able to discharge the burden cast upon him underSection 8 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 which the latter maybe able to do. Therefore, assuming for the sake of arguments thatinvalidation of Vijay Raje was deliberately and intentionally concealed byDipak, that cannot vitiate his validity.15.So far as, the composition of the Committee which grantedvalidity to Dipak, even we have been consistently taking a view that inthe light of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2003, decision of a scrutiny committeeshall be by majority. When the objection is only to the extent of one of thethree members of the committee which held him entitled to have avalidity, the eligibility of the third member would not vitiate the decisionof the Committee much less would render his validity non est.16.In the light of the above state of affairs, we are notundertaking any objective scrutiny regarding sustainability of both theseorders in respect of the contrary record referred to by the Committee inthe orders under challenge.17.To repeat, Dipak was apparently issued with certificate ofvalidity by following due process of law and the Committee has notentertained any doubt about he being related to the petitioners by blood.Consequently, following the decision in the matter of Maharashtra7/8
Arguments
5(8).WP.10166.24.odtAdvocate for petitioner/s in both WPs : Mr. S.M. VibhuteA.G.P. for respondent/State : Mr. R.S. Wani (in both WPs)Advocate for respondent No.4 : Mr. G.K. Naik Thigle (WP/7736/2021)Advocate for respondent No.5 : Mrs. Anjali Dube (WP/7736/2021)… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 18.09.2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :The petitioners who are siblings inter se are challengingseparate orders passed by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee refusingto validate their ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe certificates.2.Since the petitioners are siblings, in order to avoid rigmarole,we are disposing of both these petitions by this common order.3.The learned advocate for the petitioners would take usthrough the papers and would submit that the petitioners are relyingupon a certificate of validity possessed by one Dipak Waman Potraje whois their distant paternal uncle to whom validity was issued on 06.04.2010by following due process of law. A vigilance inquiry was conducted andby a reasoned order he was held entitled to have a certificate of validity.The Committee had not entertained any doubt about he being related tothe petitioners by blood from the paternal side. Even if the Committee isnow seeking to take exception to his validity and has made endeavour todemonstrate as to how he had obtained certificate of validity byconcealing contrary record and by practising fraud by not disclosing2/8 5(8).WP.10166.24.odtinvalidation of the tribe certificate of petitioners’ uncle Vijay by the thencommittee in the year 2002, till the time the Committee is able toundertake the due process of law and is able to recall his validity, thepetitioners cannot be deprived of the status.4.The learned advocate submits that the petitioners are readyto run the risk of facing the consequences resulting in recalling of Dipak’svalidity, in the light of observations in the matter of Shweta Balaji IsankarVs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.;WP No.6320/2017. 5.Learned advocate Mr. Vibhute would further submit thatpursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules of 2003 framed under the MaharashtraAct No.XXIII of 2001 validity holder Dipak had filed requisite affidavitgiving the genealogy in the matters of both these petitioners.6.The learned AGP would oppose both the petitions. Theywould take us through the original file of Dipak and more particularly thegenealogy furnished by him in his own matter and particularly thestatement of his father Waman Pandurang Potraje dated 11.02.2009 interalia stating that name of his grandfather was Mukinda Vyankoba Potraje,however, while submitting affidavits in support of both these petitionersDipak has given a genealogy showing that his great grandfatherMukinda’s name is Mukinda Raje Koli. It is not mentioning Vyankobabeing father of Mukinda. He would, therefore, submit that there is aserious doubt about petitioners being related to Dipak by blood from thepaternal side.3/8
Decision
5(8).WP.10166.24.odtAdiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra andOrs.; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, the petitioners are entitled to havecertificates of validity which would be co-terminus with validity of Dipak.18.The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned ordersare quashed and set aside.19.The order is dictated in open Court in presence of The AGPas also the Law Officer, who shall immediately communicate the decisionto the Committee and the petitioners be issued with the certificates ofvalidity forthwith as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe. Thevalidities shall be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings of thevalidity holders which the Committee has decided to re-open.20.The petitioners shall not claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEhabeeb8/8