High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
wp11070.24-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 11070 OF 2024Champatrao s/o Dinkar MoreAge 20 years, Occ. Student,R/o. Murtijapur Sawangi,Tq. Aundha Nagnath, Dist. Hingoli ...Petitioner versus 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Tribal Development DepartmentMantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2.The Scheduled Tribe CertificateVerification Committee, Kinwat Headquarter at AurangabadThrough its Member Secretary ...Respondents …..Mr. O.B. Boinwad, advocate for the petitioner Mr. P. S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondents ….. CORAM:MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATED:09 OCTOBER 2024 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :- We have heard both sides finally, at the stage of admission.2.The petitioner is challenging the order of respondent –scrutiny committee, refusing to validate his ‘Koli Mahadev’ Scheduledtribe certificate, in a proceeding under Section 7 of the MaharashtraAct No. XXIII of 2001. The petitioner is relying upon followinggenealogy:- wp11070.24-2- Honbarao (Great grand father)(A)Madhavrao (Grand Father)KhanderaoAanandraoHonbaraoBhimraoSureshRamchandraBalajiGopalShivshankarMarotiMadhavAmolVirendraVHAdityaVHMalharrao(B)MalbaraoKhanderaoVanketraoGanpatraoBhaurao VHBhanudasKalyanCVDigambarCVPandurang CVGulabraoUttamraoSahebraoSubharaoJaywantSanjayShivani CVShweta CVKailas DilipVinayakNagnathCVBhaurao(C)Honbarao (Great grand father)(A)Malharrao(B)MalharraoGenealogy Khanderao (Hirba) (Great great grand father) wp11070.24-3- 3.Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that fromthe aforementioned genealogy, several individuals have been issuedwith certificates of validity either by the committees or pursuant to theorders of the High Court, in the following matters:- Sr.No.W.P. No.Name of petitioner/validityholder Date ofdecision 14577 of2021Virendra Gopalrao More U/gGopalrao Honbarao More22.03.2021211180 of2018Vaishnavi Shivshankar More27.07.202337509 of2018Shivani Jaywant More24.07.20184W.P. (st.)No. 26272of 2020Nagnath Vinayak More11.01.2021ShankarraoChampatrao (Great grand father)DattaraoDevidasBhanudasBhaskarrao VHVinayakNitinAnnasahebAnkushKalyanVilasRajuSanjayNamdeoVikasPrakash VHUttamrao(Grand Father)Dinkar(Father deceased) Champatrao(Petitioner) MadhukarVasantraoRameshGajanan VHUjwala VHGaneshRajeshDattaraoBhaurao(C)
Legal Reasoning
wp11070.24-4- 5.127 of2021Shweta Jaywant More07.01.202169518 of2023Snehal Shivshankar More03.08.2023 75459 of2021 and5352 of2021Amol Sureshrao More andGopal Honbarao More07.08.202389668 of2023Aditya Gopalrao More07.08.2023 4.Mr. Boinwad, learned advocate would submit that in thelight of these many validities in the family, which individuals can betraced in the genealogy (supra), the petitioner is entitled to have acertificate of validity, may be subject to usual conditions. 5.Anticipating the submission of learned A.G.P. expressingdoubt about these validity holders being related to petitioner by blood,Mr. Boinwad would submit that the committee has not expressed anydoubt about the petitioner’s blood relationship with these individuals,and for this reason alone, the learned A.G.P. may not be permitted tomake submissions inconsistent with the stand of the scrutinycommittee. 6.Besides, Mr. Boinwad would submit that in fact, thecommittee has referred to the school record of the individuals andhas pitted it being contrary to the petitioner’s claim, wherein theseindividuals have been described as ‘Koli’, is indicative of the fact that wp11070.24-5- the committee has used contrary record to discard the petitioner’sclaim as one of the reasons and if that be so, the learned A.G.P.cannot be allowed to take a stand incompatible with the reasoning ofthe committee. 7.Additionally, Mr. Boinwad would submit that in accordancewith Rule 11 of the Rules of 2003, framed under the Maharashtra ActNo. XXIII of 2001, the petitioner had filed an affidavit of validity holderPrakash Bhaskar More, to substantiate his claim and if thecommittee was having any doubt about his relationship with thepetitioner, it could have specifically mentioned it and ought to haveassigned the reasons. That being not the case, the petitioner isentitled to derive benefit of at least validity. 8.Learned A.G.P. would fairly concede that the committee, inthe impugned judgment and order, has not entertained any doubtabout petitioner being related to the validity holders, which thelearned advocate for the petitioner is pointing out. However, hewould submit that since Prakash Bhaskar More alone had comeforward to file affidavit in support of the petitioner, the committee hasproceeded on the basis of that affidavit under the premise that thepetitioner is related to Prakash and his father Bhaskar, who alsopossesses a certificate of validity. He would submit that since thecommittee proceeded on this premise, as a logical consequence, it wp11070.24-6- has referred to the contrary school record of individuals from thebranch of Bhaurao Khanderao More. 9.Learned A.G.P. would further submit that the scrutinycommittee is manned by revenue officials who do not have the legalknowledge and have limitations in adopting appropriate approachwhile deciding such proceedings which statutorily require ScheduledCaste or Scheduled Tribe certificates to be verified. He would submitthat merely because the committee has not entertained any doubtabout the petitioner being related to validity holders and has evenpitted against him the contrary record of the individuals though areadmittedly related to Prakash Bhaskar More and his father BhaskarShankarrao More, there are several circumstances which, as anofficer of the Court, he is duty bound to disclose to the Court todemonstrate that the incompatibility of the stand in the reasoningassigned by the committee, in the impugned order, cannot be allowedto be taken advantage of by the petitioner as that could have adrastic ramifications on the State policy for providing specialtreatment to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe people. 10.In order to substantiate his stand, he would refer to thegenealogy furnished by Bhaskar Shankarrao More in his matter andthe one furnished by his son Prakash and by one Ishwari RajuMore, who though not to be seen in the genealogy furnished by the wp11070.24-7- petitioner (supra), is the daughter of Raju Devidas More shown asreal nephew of Bhaskar Shankarrao More and first degree cousin ofPrakash Bhaskar More. He would refer to our judgment in thematter of Ishwari Raju More in writ petition No. 8576 of 2024decided on 14.08.2024. He would submit that Ishwari Raju Morehad furnished a genealogy, which we reproduced in that judgmentand the genealogy being incompatible with the one furnished bypresent petitioner (supra). In her genealogy, she has shownKhanderao as the common ancestor and she being a descendant ofKhanderao, son of Malharrao through his son Venkatrao. Whereasin the genealogy furnished by the petitioner, her father Raju has beenshown to be grandson of one Shankarrao Bhaurao More and in thegenealogy furnished by her, she has shown Venkatrao MalharraoMore, as the grandfather of her father Raju More. He wouldtherefore, submit that this being a matter of validation of tribecertificate, the matter may be remanded, to enable the petitioner tolead additional evidence, if he so desires, to establish his relationshipwith the validity holders, and even the committee would be thereafterable to take the decision afresh in the light of the aforementionedfacts and circumstances. 11.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers. In the light of the parameters laid in Maharashtra Adiwasi wp11070.24-8- Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra andothers; 2023 SCC Online SC 326, it is imperative that the benefit ofearlier validities can be extended only if there is proof about thepetitioner being related to them by blood from the paternal side. 12.Bearing in mind this principle, ex facie, the genealogy beingrelied upon by the petitioner (supra) is not compatible with the onefurnished by Ishwari Raju More, which we have reproduced in ourjudgment in her matter, as follows:- Khanderao Honbarao (A) Malharrao (B) Madhavrao Malbarao Khanderao Vyankatrao GanpatraoKhanderao Anandrao Honbarao Bhimrao Gulabrao Uttamrao Sahebrao Subarao MalharraoSuresh Ramchand Balaji Gopal(V.H.) Shivshankar Maroti (V.H.) Jaywant Sanjay Kailas Dilip Vinayak Shivani Pavan Nagesh (V.H.) Nagnath (V.H.) Madhav Amol Virendra(V.H.) Aditya(V.H.) Shivani (V.H.) Shweta(V.H.) (V.H.) Vaishnavi Snehal Shrinath Raosaheb Devidas Keshav Manik Kishan (V.H.) (V.H.) (V.H.) Malbarao Raju Sanjay Bhaurao (C.V.) Ishwari ArushBhanudas Kalyan Digambar Pandurang (V.H.) (V.H.) (V.H.)13.A bare look at these genealogies would make it abundantlyclear that there is gross variance thereby making petitioner’s casequite vulnerable. It may be that Ishwari might have committed errorin furnishing genealogy but that will have to be demonstrated byleading proper evidence. We are merely pointing out thePetitioner wp11070.24-9- incompatibility which goes to the root of the petitioner’s claim of beingrelated to these validity holders including Bhaskar Shankarrao Moreand his son Prakash Bhaskar More. 14. In his own matter, Bhaskar gave following genealogy:- Bhaurao More |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1) Shankarrao More 2) Madhavrao More | |------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- | | | |1) Son - Bhaskar 2) Daughter - Indirabai 1) Honbarao 2) Gayabai | | 1) Vikas 1) Gopal 2) Prakash 2) Shivshankar 3) Pratiksha 3) Vandana 4) Sushama 4) Maroti (V.H.) Additionally, the vigilance officer, in his matter prepared agenealogy under his signature as follows :- Bhaurao More |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Shankar Madhavrao | | ------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------- | | | | Bhaskar Indira w/o Naroba Magar Honbarao Gayabai | | 1) Vikas 1) Gopal 2) Prakash 2) Sudhir 3) Pratiksha 3) Maroti 4) Sushama Interestingly, there is a genealogy furnished by thepetitioner in his own matter on affidavit in the prescribed format, asfollows:- wp11070.24-10- Madhavrao More (Great great great-grand father) | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Bhaurao Madhavrao MoreKhanderao Madhavrao More (great great-grand father) (cousin great great-grand father) |------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shankarrao More Champatrao More (cousin great grand father) (great grand father) || Bhaskar More Uttamrao More (cousin grand father) (grand father) (V.H.) ||| Prakash Dinkar (cousin uncle) (father) (V.H.) | ------------------------------------------------- ||Champatrao Pratiksha (applicant) (sister) 15.Apparently, even this genealogy furnished by the petitionerdoes not tally with the one filed by him in this petition (page 24). Onaffidavit, he had stated that one Madhavrao More was the commonancestor having two sons Bhaurao and Khanderao and Bhauraobeing great great-grand father whereas in the first genealogy filed inthis petition (supra), the common ancestor is shown as oneKhanderao (Hirba) having three sons including the petitioner’s greatgreat-grand father Bhaurao Madhavrao More. The great great-grand father shown in this genealogy is Bhaurao Khanderao More. 16.As can be gathered, even this would be incompatible withthe genealogy furnished by Bhaskar Shankarrao More (supra). 17.It is still interesting to note that in spite of incompatibility ofthe genealogy furnished by Ishwari Raju More (supra) and one reliedupon by the petitioner, Ishwari’s father - Raju’s statement was
Decision
wp11070.24-11- recorded during vigilance enquiry in the petitioner’s matter andvigilance officer has prepared a genealogy under his signature. 18.In view of such gross incompatible genealogies, whenapparently even the genealogy produced by the petitioner in this writpetition (supra) and the one furnished by him on affidavit before thescrutiny committee, even if the committee has not been able toundertake such threadbare scrutiny, in our considered view, it wouldbe in the interest of justice that the committee is called upon toappreciate all the aforementioned facts and circumstances anddecide the proposal meticulously. This would extend even anopportunity to the petitioner, to come out of such incompatible record.19.In view of above, the matter is remanded back to thescrutiny committee for a decision afresh after giving opportunity to thepetitioner to lead additional evidence as mentioned above.20.The petitioner shall appear before the committee on18.10.2024 and it shall then decide it within 16 weeks. 21.Writ petition is disposed of. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL , J.) rlj/