High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 10697 / 2024+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 10697 OF 2024Hanmant S/o Vithal Bainwad Age : 23 years, Occu : EducationR/o Chinchala Patti Umri, Tq. Umri,Dist. Nanded.. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra Tribal Development Department, Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 0012] Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat Office at Aurangabad, through its Member Secretary .. RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 10708 OF 2024Rohan S/o Datta BainwadAge : 17 years, Occu : Education,Through natural Guardian i.e.Father Datta S/o Anandarao Bainwad,Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri.,R/o Chinchala Patti Umri,Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Tribal Development Department, Through its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 001 2] Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat, Office at Aurangabad through its Member Secretary .. Respondents...Advocate for petitioners in both WPs : Mr. S.S. PhataleAGP for the respondent – State : Mr. R.S. Wani... 2 WP / 10697 / 2024+ CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 03 OCTOBER 2024ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :The petitioners are taking exception to the judgments andorders dated 06-09-2024 and 05-09-2024, respectively, passed byrespondent no. 2 – scrutiny committee, refusing to validate their‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificates.2.We have heard both the sides finally at the stage ofadmission. 3.Learned advocate for the petitioners would refer to thegenealogy at page no. 24 and would submit that though the orders areseparate, the petitioners are first degree cousins inter se and arerelying upon the same genealogy and also the same validities of thepersons stated to be blood relatives, namely, Vitthal Maroti Bainwadand Vijaylakshmi Vyankati Bainwad. He would submit that Vitthal is thefirst validity holder who had obtained validity in the year 2006, whereasVijaylakshmi had obtained the validity in the year 2007. Even if thecommittee has now attributed them of resorting to fraud while obtainingthe validity, till the time it is able to resort to appropriate proceeding andis successful in recalling the validities, the petitioners are entitled toderive their benefit. 3 WP / 10697 / 2024+ 4.In addition, he would submit that though the committee hasentertained some doubt about petitioners’ relationship with these twovalidity holders, no separate issue was framed by the committee.There is no reference even to the stand of the petitioners in their replyto the vigilance enquiry report, especially adverting the attention of thecommittee to the revenue record. He would submit that had thecommittee meticulously perused the revenue record, it would haverealized that though there is some incompatibility in the genealogies asreproduced in the impugned judgments and orders, the ancestors ofthe validity holders as well as these petitioners were sharing the sameland survey no. 85. The successors had inherited it, which would nothave been possible unless at some point of time, the land was ownedand possessed by some distant common ancestor. Without advertingto the revenue record, inference has been drawn based on surmisesand conjectures, entertaining a doubt about the blood relationship.5.Learned advocate would further point out that even acommon vigilance enquiry was conducted in the matter of petitioner’sfather and the validity holder - Vitthal Maroti Bainwad. The impugnedjudgment does not even discuss, as to why if the two were not relatedto each other by blood, a common vigilance enquiry was necessitatedand resorted to. He would, therefore, submit that the committee ought 4 WP / 10697 / 2024+ to have extended benefit of the validities of Vitthal Maroti Bainwad andVijayalakshmi Vyankati Bainwad, to the petitioners.6.Learned AGP would strongly support the impugnedjudgments and orders. He would advert our attention to the originalfiles of both the validity holders – Vitthal Maroti Bainwad andVijayalakshmi Vyankati Bainwad and would endeavour to demonstrateas to how the committee has taken a plausible view by entertaining adoubt about the blood relationship of these petitioners with the validityholders. Incompatibility of the genealogies furnished by the petitionersand one relied upon by Vijayalakshmi while deciding her proposal iswrit large and no exception can be taken to the inference of thecommittee.7.Apart therefrom, the learned AGP would further submit thatthe committee has also demonstrated as to how there wasincompatible record of petitioners’ great grandfather Lakshman LaluMunarvad wherein in the revenue record - 7/12 extract, he wasdescribed as ‘Munarvad’ and in the Khasra Pahani Patrak, the originalentry of ‘Munervar’ was found to be manipulated by adding letter ‘lu’.The committee has also referred to three other contrary records in theform of school record of petitioners’ grandfather – Ananda MohanajiBainwad describing him as ‘Munurvar’ and father’s paternal aunt –Gaurabai Mohanaji wherein she was described as ‘Munarvad’. In the
Legal Reasoning
5 WP / 10697 / 2024+ light of such incompatible school record, the committee was justified indiscarding the petitioners’ claims.8.We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers including the original files of validity holders - Vitthal MarotiBainwad and Vijaylakshmi Vyankati Bainwad.9.True it is that by virtue of rule 11 of the rules framed underthe Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, if a claimant seeks to rely uponvalidities of the blood relatives in the family, he is supposed to file theiraffidavits. However, in our considered view, this rule can only beinterpreted as a directory one and not mandatory. When the lawrequires a fact to be proved, more so, where it is to be proved on thebasis of preponderance of probabilities, there cannot be a strict law asto the manner in which it can be proved. Failure of the claimantseeking validation of the caste or tribe certificate, to substantiate it byfiling affidavit of the validity holder, he is relying upon, cannot ipso factomake the claim false. There could be many reasons due to which he isunable to do so. If the blood relative is not co-operating and comingforward, would it mean that the claimant does not belong to a particularcaste or tribe. Bearing in mind this principle, the observations of thecommittee, referring to the absence of any affidavit by validity holders -Vitthal Maroti Bainwad and Vijaylakshmi Vyankati Bainwad, would notbe sustainable per se. 6 WP / 10697 / 2024+ 10.True it is that the impugned judgments also refer to anddemonstrate incompatibility in the genealogies furnished byVijayalakshmi in her own claim and the one relied upon by petitioner –Hanmant. However, simultaneously, it is pertinent to note that validityholder - Vitthal Maroti Bainwad had submitted the reply to the vigilancereport conducted in his matter on 21-12-2021, expressly mentioningand admitting that one Ananda Mohanaji Bainwad was his third degreecousin who is apparently none other than the grandfather of petitioner– Hanmant. Though he was denying the contrary school recordrecovered during vigilance enquiry of a person with the same name –Ananda Mohanaji Bainwad. He had stated that the contrary record isnot that of his third degree cousin with the same name and in-fact, hewas illiterate. This would prima facie demonstrate that the contraryschool record being relied upon by the committee in the impugnedjudgments, of Ananda Mohanaji Bainwad was sought to be pressedinto service while discarding claim of Vitthal Maroti Bainwad who hadsubsequently challenged that decision in writ petition no. 2008 of 2022,and by the judgment and order dated 10-02-2022, this Court had heldhim entitled to have a certificate of validity.11.Further, the revenue record annexed to the petition primafacie demonstrates that various sub-divisions of same land survey no.85 stand in the name of father of the validity holder - Vitthal Maroti 7 WP / 10697 / 2024+ Bainwad and Vijaylakshmi Vyankati Bainwad as also the petitioners’ancestors. In the normal course, persons would inherit the same landfrom same common ancestor resulting in sub-division. The fact thatthe persons from all the three branches of validity holders - VitthalMaroti Bainwad, Vijaylakshmi Vyankati Bainwad and the presentpetitioners have succeeded to the same land survey no. 85, couldpossibly be demonstrative of there being a common ancestor, may befrom some distant generation. Neither the petitioners seem to havesought to rely upon it to substantiate the blood relationship or even thecommittee has not carefully considered this aspect.12.It is in this context, we are of the considered view thatwhen this is not an adversarial litigation, it would be appropriate thatthe matter is remanded to the scrutiny committee, to enable thepetitioners to substantiate their claims by leading additional evidenceand even the committee would be able to objectively scrutinize anddecide the issue regarding blood relationship of the petitioners with thevalidity holders, by taking note of the afore-mentioned facts andcircumstances. 13.Writ petitions are allowed partly.14.The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and setaside. 8 WP / 10697 / 2024+ 15.The claims are remitted back to the respondent no. 2 –scrutiny committee for decision afresh, in accordance with law, byextending opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate their claims byleading additional evidence and if necessary, by resorting to furthervigilance enquiry. 16.The petitioners shall appear before the committee on11-10-2024.17.The committee shall thereafter decide the proposals afreshas early as possible and in any case within 16 weeks. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/