High Court
Facts
WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 11620 OF 2017 Pravin Dattatraya WatmareAge : 42 years, Occ : Service,R/o, Nevasa (kh), Tq. Nevasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.…PetitionerVERSUS1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,Nashik. Through its Member Secretary2.Education Officer (Secondary),Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar3.Shri. Marutirao Ghule Patil’s Shikshan Sanstha,Dnyaneshwar Nagar, Post Bhende, Tq. Nevasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.Through its Secretary4.Jijamata Madhyamik Vidyalaya,Dnyaneshwar Nagar,Post Bhende, Tq. Nevasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.Through its Head Master…RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 11621 OF 2017 Arvind Dattatraya WatmareAge : 44 years, Occ : Service,R/o, Nevasa (kh), Tq. Nevasa,Dist. Ahmednagar.…PetitionerVERSUS1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,Nashik. Through its Member Secretary2.Municipal CorporationPimpri Chinchwad – 411018,Pune.Through its Commissioner1/7
Legal Reasoning
WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +holder, one Rakhama has been shown to be the common ancestor survivedby two sons Balu and Rama. Rama is shown to have two sons Shankar andPrabhakar whereas in form ‘F’ the petitioners have shown Balu to be thecommon ancestor having two sons Shankar and Sakharam and Shankar isshown to have son Ramdas and Prabhakar.9.It is thus apparent that it is a matter of human error. It cannotbe said that the two genealogies are wholly incompatible. There areseveral individuals which are in common. Ex facie the only error seems tobe that instead of the petitioners had skipped one generation when theyought to show Rama to be a brother of Balu and Shankar and Prabhakarbeing sons of Rama erroneously, they have shown that Shankar andSakharam as the sons of Balu when Sakharam was alone was Balu’s sonand Shankar and Prabhakar were the children of Balu’s brother Rama.10.Pertinently, the genealogy has been prepared by the vigilanceofficer which has been reproduced in the vigilance report which ex faciesubstantiates the petitioners’ claim and pertinently showing the validityholder – Sachin, Dattatray and Yashwant to be related to them by blood.11.Pertinently, all the validity holders Sachin Bhanudas Watmare,Dattatray Bhanudas Watmare and Yashwant Ramdas Watmare havesubmitted affidavits supporting petitioners’ claim and furnishing thegenealogies demonstrating their relationship inter se. The committee has5/7 WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +not assigned plausible reason for discarding these affidavits. Its suchconduct in our view is perverse and arbitrary.12.Besides, the approach of the committee in this regard ispeculiar. It is not ready to accept Sachin to be related to the petitioners byblood from the paternal side but simultaneously it has used the schoolrecord of Sachin’s father Bhanudas and cousin Vasant and pitted it againstthe petitioners. If the committee was of the view that there was no relationinter se, it could not have legally referred to the record of Bhanudas andVasant. Rather, not only in the vigilance report but even in the impugnedjudgment, the committee has described them as petitioners’ cousin uncleand cousin respectively. No plausible explanation is coming forth in theimpugned judgment and order.13.In our considered view, the committee’s approach in failing toappreciate the aforementioned facts and circumstances and readilydrawing inference because of the incompatibility of the genealogyfurnished by the petitioners and by the validity holder - Sachin is clearlyperverse and arbitrary.14.Once having reached this conclusion, in our considered view,following the principle laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC OnlineSC 326, the petitioners are entitled to derive the benefits of the validitiesin the family.6/7
Arguments
WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +3.Administrative Officer,Municipal CorporationPimpri Chinchwad – 411018,Pune.…Respondents…•Mr. Ameya Sabnis and Mr. G. S. Bagul, advocates for petitioner inboth writ petitions.•Ms. S. S. Joshi, AGP for respondent No. 1 and 2 in WP No. 11620 of2017 and for respondent No. 1 in WP No. 11621 of 2017.…CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE: 19.03.2025ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :.By way of these separate writ petitions, the real brothers arechallenging the common judgment and order dated 25.05.2017 ofrespondent – Scrutiny Committee, in a proceeding under Section 7 of theMaharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, whereby it has refused to validatetheir ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe certificates. 2.Rule. It is made returnable forthwith.3.Learned AGP waives service. At the joint request of theparties, the matters are heard together and are being disposed of finally atthe stage of admission by this common order.4.Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that thecommittee has not appreciated the evidence correctly, even it has ignoredvalidities in the family which were issued by following due process of law.2/7 WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +The committee has reached a jumping conclusion by reproducing thegenealogies, one presented by the petitioners and the other submitted byvalidity holder – Sachin Bhanudas Watmare in his own matter. There isapparent mistake and a human error. The inference drawn by thecommittee entertaining doubt about relationship of the petitioners withSachin, is based on surmises and conjunctures. The committee has blownhot and cold simultaneously. Even when the committee is refusing toconsider Sachin as related to the petitioners by blood, simultaneously, ithas refuted the petitioners’ claim by using a contrary record of Sachin’sfather Bhanudas and Sachin’s first degree cousin Vasant Ramdas Watmare.If the committee was to proceed disputing the relationship, it could nothave used the contrary record of Bhanudas and Vasant. He would submitthat in fact Sachin has filed an affidavit in support of petitioners’ claimand has given a corrected and extended genealogy. The committee has notassigned cogent and plausible reasons for not relying upon Sachin’saffidavit as also similar affidavits of his brothers who are also validitycertificate holders. The observations and the conclusions are perverse andarbitrary and the impugned order be quashed and set aside.5.Per contra, Miss Joshi, the learned AGP would emphasize onthe apparent incompatibility of the genealogies reproduced in theimpugned order, one furnished by the petitioners and the other by Sachinin his own matter. She would also submit that each case has to be decided3/7 WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +on its own merits and the evidence led before the committee. Thepetitioners are not entitled to derive the benefit of Sachin’s validity. She,therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.6.Additionally, Mr. Sabnis learned advocate for the petitionerssubmits that apart from Sachin, his real brother Dattattray, his seconddegree cousin Yashwant, Yashwant’s daughter Anajali have been issuedwith certificates of validity. In fact, Anjali has been held entitled to have acertificate of validity by the order of this Court in writ petition No. 8276 of2020 decided on 21.12.2020.7.We have considered the rival submissions and perused theoriginal record of the scrutiny committee, not only of the petitioners buteven that of Sachin, his father Bhanudas, Yashwant Ramdas Watmare andthat of Anajali Yashwant Watmare.8.True it is that in the matter of Sachin he had submitted agenealogy, which is reproduced by the committee in the impugned order.If that genealogy is considered in juxtaposition to genealogy furnished bythe petitioners in form ‘F’, both to some extent are not compatibleinasmuch as, Sachin had shown a branch of Rama Watmare having twosons Shankar Rama Watmare and Prabhu Rama Watmare, whereas in thegenealogy furnished by the petitioners in form ‘F’ and even in thegenealogy furnished by Sachin on his affidavit filed in petitioner’s matterin their support and even by Arvind Dattatray Watmare, who is a validity4/7
Decision
WP NO. 11620 OF 2017 +15.Both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order isquashed and set aside. The committee shall issue certificates of validity tothe petitioners which shall be subject to the final outcome of the validitieswhich the committee has decided to reopen, as recorded by this Court inthe order passed in the matter of Anjali d/o. Yashwant Watmare (Supra).16.The petitioners are not entitled to claim equities.(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)jhs/7/7