High Court · 2024
Facts
wp10779.24--1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD65 WRIT PETITION NO. 10779 OF 2024Sandeep Shankar MukkerwarAge : 20 years, Occu. Education,R/o : Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli,Dist. Nanded ... Petitioner VERSUSThe State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai and another… RespondentsANDWRIT PETITION NO. 11103 OF 2024Shubham Shankar Mukkerwar,Age : 24 years, Occu. Education,R/o : Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli,Dist. Nanded … Petitioners VERSUSThe State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Tribal Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai and another… Respondents…..Advocate for petitioners in both WPs : Mr. Sunil M. VibhuteAGP for respondents: Mr. S.R. Yadav - Lonikar ….. CORAM:MANGESH S. PATIL AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATED:7 OCTOBER 2024 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :- By way of these separate writ petitions, two real brothersare putting up challenge to the judgments and orders of respondent wp10779.24--2- no.2 - scrutiny committee, passed on the same date i.e. 25.09.2024,assigning the same reasons for discarding their Mannervarluscheduled tribe certificates and directing those to be confiscated andcancelled, instead of validating those in the light of Section 7 of theMaharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001.2.At the joint request of the parties, the matters are heardfinally at the stage of admission in the light of exigences beingpointed out.3.Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that in factSandeep had faced order of invalidation. He had assailed that orderin writ petition No.10210 of 2024. By order dated 19.09.2024, the writpetition was allowed partly and the matter was remanded to thescrutiny committee for decision afresh. He would point out that thepetitioners have been relying upon the validity of one SidramGangaram Mukkerwar, who is first degree cousin of their fatherShankar. Since he had not turned up to support the petitioners andthey could not file his affidavit, as contemplated under Rule 11 of theRules of 2003 framed under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001,the committee while discarding Sandeep’s claim, had refused toextend benefit of Sidram’s validity, only on the ground that he had notcome forward to substantiate the claim on affidavit.
Legal Reasoning
wp10779.24--3- 4.Mr. Vibhute, learned advocate would submit that the matterwas remanded with a specific direction to consider if Sidram’s validitycould be taken aid of by Sandeep, to claim the similar validity,overlooking that he had not come forward to file any affidavit, as isrequired by Rule 11 of the Rules of 2003. Mr. Vibhute submits thatafter remand, while deciding the matter again, the committee hasnow doubted that Sidram is related to the petitioners by blood fromthe paternal side. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to havecertificates of validity. He would submit that since the committee hasnow disclosed its intention to undertake re-verification of Sidram’svalidity, alleging about he having resorted to a fraud while obtainingcertificate of validity, till the time the committee is able to do that, thepetitioners cannot be made to wait at the cost of their careers, theywould be bound by the observations of this court in the matter ofShweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (writpetition no. 6320 of 2017) and ready to have conditional validitycertificates. 5.Learned A.G.P. would admit the fact that there is no disputeabout the validity holder Sidaram being related to the petitioners byblood. However, he would submit, the committee has assignedcogent and plausible reasons for drawing an inference about Sidramhaving practiced fraud by considering contrary record, while obtaining wp10779.24--4- certificate of validity and it has inherent powers to undertake re-scrutiny. The petitioners cannot be allowed to derive its benefits.6.Learned A.G.P. would further point out that the committeehas meticulously referred to contrary record wherein the petitioners’blood relatives were described in the school record as ‘Shimpi’,‘Mannerwar’, ‘Manerwarlu’ and ‘Munurwar’. Even the samemanipulation could be traced and the committee has appropriatelyconsidered the evidence in the proper perspectives while discardingthe claim. 7.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers including scanned copy of Sidram’s file maintained by thecommittee and made available to us by the learned A.G.P. 8.There is no dispute about the fact that Sidram is a firstdegree cousin of petitioners’ father Shankar and is their bloodrelative. 9.Sidram’s file would reveal that the vigilance enquiry wasconducted and school record was verified and by a reasoned order,he was held entitled to have certificate of validity. This would fulfill allthe parameters laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur JamatSwarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023SCC Online SC 326, for extending its benefits to the petitioners. wp10779.24--5- 10. Whether the evidence before the then committee wasenough and whether the then committee had appreciated thematerial before it in the correct perspectives, are not the parameterslaid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat SwarakshanSamiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). The factremains that the proper procedure, as is contemplated inMaharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and the rules framed thereunder,was duly followed before holding him to be entitled to have certificateof validity.11.Even if the committee has now sought to take exception toSidram’s validity and has decided to undertake re-scrutiny for thealleged fraud perpetrated by him, we cannot undertake objectivescrutiny of the inference drawn by the committee in this proceeding,for, Sidram is not before us and we do not intend to influencecommittee’s decision in his matter, to be re-opened. Let that happenin an appropriate proceeding. The alleged fraud, in our consideredview, is not so glaring, as would be enough to be rightly discarded hisvalidity. There is no material sufficient enough to demonstrate that hisvalidity is a nullity. Therefore, till the time the committee is able toundertake due procedure and is able to recall Sidram’s validity, thepetitioners are entitled to derive its benefits when they are ready toface the consequences laid down in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs.
Decision
wp10779.24--6- State of Maharashtra and others (supra). They cannot be made towait at the cost of their careers. 12.In the light of above, the impugned orders refusing issuanceof validity certificates to the petitioners as ‘Mannervarlu ScheduledTribes” are not sustainable in law.13.The writ petitions are allowed partly.14.The impugned orders, in both these petitions, dated25.09.2024, respectively, are quashed and set aside.15.The committee shall immediately issue certificates ofvalidity to the petitioners of Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe.16.The validity of the petitioners would be co-terminus with thatof Sidram Gangaram Mukkerwar.17.Petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL , J.) rlj/