High Court
Legal Reasoning
937.WP.11509.23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.11509 OF 2023Shivam s/o. Sudhakar Kamthewadthrough power of attorney holderSudhakar s/o Dattatray Kamthewad…PETITIONERVERSUS 1.The State of Maharashtra,through its Secretary,Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste CertificateVerification Committee, KinwatHead Quarter at Aurangabad through its Dy. Director (R),Dist. Aurangabad…RESPONDENTS ...Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Sunil M. VibhuteA.G.P. for Respondent : Mr. P.S. Patil… CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 30.07.2024ORDER ( PER : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :The petitioner is challenging the order of invalidation of his‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificate, by the order under challengepassed by respondent No.2 – Committee. Considering the urgency beingdemonstrated, the matter is taken up for final hearing with the consent ofboth the sides.2.The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that as1/6 937.WP.11509.23.odtmentioned in the impugned judgment and order there are numerousvalidities, some of which have been referred to by the Committee suomoto. Though the petitioner’s father’s matter is pending with the HighCourt, considering the number of validities and many of which have beengranted by the orders of this Court, the Committee could not haverefused to extend the benefit, of these many validities, to the petitioner.3.Learned advocate would submit that even if the Committeehas now formed an opinion that the validity holders had resorted to fraudwhile obtaining the certificates of validity, it is a matter of adjudication.Till the time those validities are not recalled and cancelled, the petitionerbeing the blood relative deserves to be extended the benefit, may beconditionally. The petitioner is ready to run the risk of facing theconsequences contemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.;WP No.6320/2017.4.The learned AGP would strongly oppose the petition. Hewould submit that though there are number of validities there is a doubtabout relationship of the petitioner with many of them. The learned AGPwould try to convince us on this aspect by referring to the genealogiesfurnished by the petitioner and the one furnished in the matter ofVaijnath which are not compatible. He would further submit that theCommittee could lay hands on and has expressly referred to severalentries in the school and birth record which are either not compatiblewith the petitioner’s claim or have been clearly manipulated by resorting2/6
Legal Reasoning
937.WP.11509.23.odtto forgery. The petitioner cannot be allowed to derive the benefit of suchrampant fraud perpetrated by the blood relatives and the petitioner maynot be extended the benefit even of having a conditional validity.5.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers. Though the learned AGP has made strenuous efforts to point outthe incompatibility of the genealogies furnished by the petitioner and theone furnished by some of the earlier validity holders, it would suffice tomention that the Committee in the entire impugned judgment has noteven whispered about having entertained any doubt regarding the bloodrelationship between the petitioner and the validity holders. In fact,while discussing Issue No.2, in paragraph No.7, the Committee on its ownhas referred to validities of the several individuals from its record,expressly stating that these are the relatives of the petitioner. Thepetitioner was merely relying upon the validities of cousin sistersPratidnya Pandharinath Kamthewad and Dhanashri ArvindraoKamthewad. Still, the Committee has stated to have discovered as manyas validities possessed by fourteen individuals named therein. We areprecisely pointing out this circumstance to demonstrate that thesubmission of the learned AGP, without any reasoning on these linesresorted to by the Committee entertaining doubt about the relationship ofthe petitioner with the validity holders, cannot be considered.6.We need not indulge in entertaining and deciding thepetitioner’s claim by scanning the material relied upon by him and even3/6 937.WP.11509.23.odtthe one mentioned in the impugned order. We are saved from suchordeal for the simple reason that admittedly, there are several validities inthe family of near and distant blood relatives, relationship of thepetitioner with whom has not been doubted by the Committee.7.True it is that the benefit of the validities in the family can beextended to a blood relative only if the earlier validities were issued inaccordance with law and for the reasons recorded, as has been laid downin the Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State ofMaharashtra and Ors.;2023 SCC Online SC 326. However, in ourconsidered view, with respect, even we are saved from such ordeal ofundertaking the scrutiny for the reason that admittedly, there are severalvalidities in the family some of which have been granted pursuant to theorders of the coordinate division benches.8.The Committee in the impugned judgment has alleged fraudagainst several validity holders, however, fraud being a serious allegationwould require a threadbare inquiry by extending opportunity of beingheard to the alleged perpetrators. Since it would require due process oflaw to be followed, we do not think it appropriate that any exerciseshould be undertaken in the present matter to ascertain if thesecircumstances being referred to by the Committee would really constitutesupersession of material facts. The Committee will have to substantiatesuch inference in a proper inquiry. Any observation made by us couldhave a bearing on those inquiries the Committee intends to reopen. We4/6 937.WP.11509.23.odtdo not intend to do that.9.In this regard, it is important to note that the petitioner’sdistant cousin from the paternal side Pratidnya Pandharinath Kamthewadwas held to be entitled to have a certificate of validity by a division benchat the Principal Seat in Writ Petition No.10305/2017, by the order dated06.10.2017. It was a blanket validity. Subsequently, in the matter ofPratidnya’s real sister Haripriya whose claim was also invalidated, shehad filed Writ Petition (ST) No.22285/2020. By the order dated07.12.2020, on a similar stand being taken by the Committee and thesubmissions of the learned AGP regarding alleged fraud, a coordinatedivision bench of this Court had expressly observed that Haripriya wasentitled to have a certificate of validity by precisely pointing out thathowever, its validity would be subject to the final outcome of the reviewwhich the Committee had decided to resort to of the order passed in thematter of Pratidnya. As is mentioned herein above, Pratidnya’s matterwas decided in the year 2017, Haripriya’s matter was decided in the year2020 and till date, there is nothing on the record to demonstrate that anyattempt has been made to seek review of the judgment and order passedin the matter of Pratidnya.10.For years together the Committee has been keeping ahanging sword, without making any serious attempt to take the matterand particularly the allegations regarding fraud to the logical end. Thepetitioner cannot be denied benefit of having a validity, again, subject to5/6
Decision
937.WP.11509.23.odtthe final outcome of the review to be preferred in the matter of PratidnyaPandharinath Kamthewad.11.The writ petition is allowed partly. The impugned judgmentand order is quashed and set aside. The respondent - Scrutiny Committeeshall immediately issue certificate of validity to the petitioner of‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe. Its validity would be subject to the finaloutcome of the review of the judgment and order in the matter ofPratidnya Pandharinath Kamthewad.[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEhabeeb6/6