High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 10335 / 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 10335 OF 2024Sachin Shivsing DhirbassiAge : 25 years, Occu – Education,R/o : Hiwari, Tq. Sonegaon,Dist. Ch. Sambhajinagar.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Ch. Sambhajinagar Region, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Through its Deputy Director (R).. Respondents...Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Pratap V. JadhavarAddl. GP for the respondent – State : Mr. P.S. Patil... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 20 SEPTEMBER 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard.2.The petitioner is challenging the decision of respondentno. 2 - scrutiny committee refusing to validate his ‘Naikda’ (tribe serialno. 35) scheduled tribe certificate.
Decision
2 WP / 10335 / 2024 3.Learned advocate for the petitioner submits thatpetitioner’s four third degree cousins had also faced similarinvalidation. In the writ petitions, similar orders of the committees werequashed and set aside and this Court held them entitled to havecertificates of validity subject to the outcome of the matters of thevalidity holders which the committee had decided to undertake re-scrutiny of, for the alleged fraud. The petitioner is also ready to run therisk of facing consequences contemplated in Shweta Balaji IsankarVs. State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 6320 of2017), as even in his matter, the committee is now again entertaining adoubt and attributing fraud to the original validity holder - HirasingShankar Dhirbassi who was issued with certificate of validity on05-11-2007.4.Per contra, the learned AGP would submit that it is amatter of rampant manipulation of the school record resorted to by theearlier validity holders. On verification of the school record of the ZillaParishad Marathi Higher Secondary School, Taroda, Taluka – Motala,District – Buldhana, it was found that the caste columns of the registerwere scored off by blade and were re-written and replaced by word‘Naikda’. The petitioner cannot be allowed to derive the benefit of fraudirrespective of his stand of foregoing his claim if and when the fraud isproved. The committee has rightly decided to recall the validities by 3 WP / 10335 / 2024 undertaking re-verification of the validity holders and the petition maybe dismissed on this ground alone. 5.We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers. 6.Obviously, fraud being a serious allegation which has to beproved to the hilt, it can happen only after following due process oflaw. It would be a long drawn process and the petitioner cannot bemade to wait till the committee is able to undertake that process andsuccessfully recalls the certificate of validity. This cannot happen at thecost of petitioner’s career.7.The fact remains that petitioner’s four distant cousins havebeen held entitled to have certificates of validity by various orders ofthe High Court; i) Bhagyashri D/o Hirasing Dhirbassi and Swapnil S/oHirasing Dhirbassi in writ petition no. 10515 of 2023 vide order dated25-08-2023 and ii) Prerna Hirasing Dhirbassi and Gurunanak DipchandDhirbassi in writ petition no. 13932 of 2023 vide order dated28-11-2023.8.Independently, keeping aside the alleged fraudulent entriesin the school register of the Zilla Parishad Marathi Higher SecondarySchool, Taroda, Taluka – Motala, District – Buldhana, so far as therevenue record is concerned, the committee has entertained a doubt 4 WP / 10335 / 2024 about genuineness of some of the entries and not all the revenuerecord. In respect of some of the entries, it has merely beenmentioned that the name / surname is shown as ‘Naikda’. 9.Precisely, for this reason, we put a specific query to thelearned AGP Mr. Patil, as to whether there are any circumstances todemonstrate that ‘Naikda’ nomenclature is being used evenphonetically by a person not belonging to that caste or tribe as ithappens and as is the consistent stand of various scrutiny committeesin respect of use of surnames ‘Thakur’, ‘Thakar’ or ‘Koli’. He could notgive any instance. According to us, if the caste or tribe is known by aspecific nomenclature, as in the present case ‘Naikda’, the very factthat admittedly, many of the petitioner’s ancestors have been usingsuch a surname, in our considered view, would provide a circumstanceto substantiate the claim of the person like petitioner, to the ‘Naikda’scheduled tribe. We could not notice that the committee hasconsidered this aspect when it has also been assisted by the servicesof a Research Officer. Once having noticed this, even if ‘Naikda’ hasbeen used as a surname, that would provide a piece of evidence tosubstantiate the claim of being ‘Naikda’ scheduled tribe VJ-A. 10.It may be that there are several attempts at forgery; but‘falsus in uno falsus in omnibus’, is not a principle recognized in India. 5 WP / 10335 / 2024 A person may over-enthusiastically, in order to substantiate a claim,could obviously resort to some manipulation. If wherever there is amanipulation those entries can be ignored or discarded, that cannot betaken ipso facto as a circumstance to out-rightly discard every otherpiece of evidence or circumstance. It is in this context, it would berelevant that the petitioner’s ancestors and some relatives have beenusing ‘Naikda’ as a surname and this circumstance and the documentswherever they are so described over a period of time, would lendsupport to the petitioner’s claim.11.For instance, in respect of one Amruta Ravjya who isshown in the genealogy stated by affidavit on oath and was available tothe committee showing him as a second degree cousin of petitioner’sgreat grandfather - Shaligram Fattu, the birth and death record,genuineness of which is not doubted by the committee, the record hasbeen discarded on the ground that in the caste column, word ‘Naikda’was added subsequently. The photocopy reveals that even if that isconsidered to be a manipulation, in another column, the individual wasexpressly described as ‘Naikda’. As has been mentioned by thecommittee itself in respect of revenue record, even the Pahani Patrakand Form no. 3 of Chinga Fattu Naikda, who is shown to be realbrother of petitioner’s great grandfather – Shaligram, word ‘Naikda’ isappearing against his name. Same is the observation in respect of 6 WP / 10335 / 2024 Ranbhya Krushna Naikda, stated to be cousin great grandfather andBhagwan Khushal Naikda, stated to be uncle of Shaligram from thepaternal side. 12.In view of such peculiar state-of-affairs, in our consideredview, even if the committee is now attributing fraud on the part of thevalidity holders and seeking to re-open their cases for recalling thevalidities, the petitioner is entitled to derive the benefits of the validitiestill the time those are not successfully and finally recalled andcancelled. 13.The writ petition is partly allowed.14.The impugned judgment and order dated 18-09-2024passed by respondent no. 2 – Scrutiny Committee is quashed and setaside.15.Respondent no. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall immediatelyissue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Naikda’(tribe serial no. 35) scheduled tribe in the prescribed proforma.16.The validity certificate of the petitioner shall be co-terminuswith the validity certificates of the blood relatives of the petitioner whoare facing reverification. 7 WP / 10335 / 2024 17.The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/