High Court
Facts
1 WP / 14851 / 2019+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 14851 OF 20191] Shubham S/o Dhondiba Konkewar, Age : 22 years, Occu : Student, R/o. Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded2] Prasad S/o Sanjay Konkewar, Age : 18 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded.. Petitioners Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through : Director of Medical Admn., Mumbai – 32.2] Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes, Through : Vice Chairman, Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary, Aurangabad3] Commissioner & Competent Auyhority Maharashtra CET Cell, Govt. Of Mahaashtra, 8th Floor, New Exceeelsior Building, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 001 [Respondent no. 3 Deleted as per Court’s Order dated 10-12-2019] .. Respondents WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 3267 OF 20201] Vaibhav S/o Madhavrao Konkewar, Age : 20 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded2] Mayur S/o Madhavrao Konkewar, Age : 18 years, Occu. Student, R/o. Karadkhed, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioners Versus 2 WP / 14851 / 2019+ 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through : Director of Medical Admn., Mumbai – 322] Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes, Through Vice-Chairman, Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary, Aurangabad3] Commissioner & Competent Authority Maharashtra CET Cell, Govt. of Maharashtra, 8th Floor, New Exceeelsior Building, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 0014] The Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, Nanded Through its – Registrar5] S.G.G.S. Institute of Technology, Vishnupuri, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded, Through its – Director .. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 12480 OF 2023Someshwar S/o Rukhmaji Konkewar,Age : 51 years, Occu. Service,R/o, Karadkhedwadi, Tq. Degloor,Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner Versus1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2] The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Kinwat Head Quarter at Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Dist. Aurangabad3] The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Nanded Tq. & Dist. Nanded4] The Secretary, Balak Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Marwali Tanda, Tq. Naigaon (Kh). Dist. Nanded
Legal Reasoning
3 WP / 14851 / 2019+ 5] The Head Master, Primary Ashram School, Marwali Tanda, Tq. Naigaon (Kh), Dist. Nanded.. Respodents...Advocate for petitioner (WP/ 14851/2019 and WP/3267/2020) : Mr. O.B. BoinwadAdvocate for petitioner (WP/12480/2023) : Mr. S.M. VibhuteAddl.GP for the respondent – State : Mr. A.R. KaleAdvocate for respondent no. 3 (WP/3267/2020) : Mr. S.G. Karlekar... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE : 05 AUGUST 2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By way of theseseparate writ petitions, the petitioners are taking exception to thejudgment and orders of the scrutiny committee in a proceeding undersection 7 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, to validate theirrespective Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe certificates.2. The impugned order is a common order in the matter ofpetitioners from writ petition no. 14851 of 2019 and writ petition no.3267 of 2020, obviously, as the committee has not raised any disputeabout they being related inter se by blood from the paternal side.3. Though the petitioner in writ petition 12480 of 2019 ischallenging the order in his matter, ex facie, even there is no disputeabout the fact he is also related to the other petitioners by blood fromthe paternal side. Apart from the fact that in both the proceedings, the
Decision
4 WP / 14851 / 2019+ petitioners as also the committee has been relying upon same set ofevidence and since all these petitioners are seeking to derive thebenefit of the validities possessed by the same individuals, with theconsent of both sides, these matters have been taken up for decisionsimultaneously and are being disposed of by this common judgmentand order, in order to avoid rigmarole, albeit there is slight difference inrespect of the reasoning assigned in both the judgments.4. The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit thatthere are several validities in the family. Though the committee hasobserved that these validity holders had obtained certificates of validityby resorting to fraud, the committee will have to substantiate suchobservations by undertaking a detail enquiry and by following dueprocess of law, even if it is assumed that the committee has suchpower. They would submit that so long as these validities are notrecalled by following due process of law, the petitioners cannot bedeprived of deriving the benefit. They would also submit that thevalidities were issued to the validity holders by following due process oflaw and for adequate reasons and the benefit of having validity cannotbe denied to the petitioners. The learned advocates would submit thatthe petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing the consequencescontemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtraand others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017) and may be grantedconditional validities. 5 WP / 14851 / 2019+ 5. The learned AGP would strenuously submit that thecommittee has elaborately considered the record of the petitioner’sblood relatives which is contrary to the petitioners’ claim of ‘KoliMahadev’. Earlier ‘Koli’ was included in Other Backward Class(O.B.C.) and later on in Special Backward Class (S.B.C.). He wouldsubmit that even the committee could trace out manipulation in theschool record. Fraud was practised on the committee by not disclosingsuch contrary record. The committee has every right and power toundertake fresh scrutiny of the validities granted to these validityholders. Notices have been issued to some of them and the petitionerscannot be allowed to derive benefit of the fraud perpetrated by theirblood relatives. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perusedthe papers.7. As has been cursorily observed herein-above, there is nodispute raised by the committee in either of these judgments underchallenge about the relationship of all these petitioners inter se as wellas their relationship with the validity holders expressly mentioned in theimpugned orders. It is, therefore, imperative for us to undertake ascrutiny as to if petitioners can be extended the benefit of suchvalidities in the family, in light of the parameters laid down in 6 WP / 14851 / 2019+ Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326.8. There is no dispute about the fact that Bharat KishanraoKonkewar was the first validity holder who was issued with a certificateof validity in the year 1998. The committee in both the impugnedjudgments has observed that Bharat had obtained validity concealingthe contrary school record wherein the ancestors of the petitionerswere admitted to the schools by expressly mentioning in the castecolumn of the school register that they were ‘Koli’ right from the year1954 till the year 1984. In the matter of the other petitioners other thanSomeshwar, while undertaking independent scrutiny of validity ofBharat, it has enlisted such contrary entries and even for the selfsamereason, validities possessed by Madhav Rukhmaji Konkewar, AnilSambhaji Konkewar and Maroti Rukhmaji Wadikar have been refusedto be extended to the petitioners.9. Needless to state that allegations of fraud is a purequestion of fact which would require a detailed enquiry into the allegedcircumstances which according to the committee, constitute fraud. Itwould be imperative that any such decision is taken by issuing noticesto the validity holders and by undertaking due process of law. We donot feel it appropriate to record any observation in respect of thesecircumstances as we are conscious of the fact that the validity holders 7 WP / 14851 / 2019+ are not before us. Any observation made by us could have a bearingon the enquiries which the committee has decided to undertake inrespect of the validity holders. We, therefore, are of the consideredview that it is better left for the committee to ponder upon the issue andto take it to the logical end. 10. Unlike what has been stated in Maharashtra AdiwasiJamat (supra), the committee in the impugned orders has not madeany observation and even the learned AGP could not objectivelydemonstrate before us that Bharat and subsequent validity holderswere issued with certificates of validity without following due processand without assigning any reason. In the absence of which, thecommittee could not have refused to extend the benefit of thesevalidities in the family to all these petitioners. 11. In this context, it is also necessary to note that one NirajMaroti Wadikar (Konkewar) who is the first degree cousin of petitioners- Vaibhav and Mayur had also faced invalidation. His writ petitionno. 86 of 2005 challenging the order of the scrutiny committee wasdismissed by this Court. He preferred civil appeal no. 7127 of 2008before the Supreme Court. By order dated 11-06-2010, the appeal wasallowed, the matter was remanded back to the scrutiny committee. Thecommittee thereafter validated his tribe certificate. It is important tonote that while filing affidavit in form ‘F’ in tune with rule 11(2)(a) of the 8 WP / 14851 / 2019+ rules framed under the Act, the petitioner - Vaibhav had expresslysought to place reliance on the validity issued to Niraj Maroti Wadikar.However, the impugned judgment passed in the matter of other fourpetitioners other than Someshwar, the committee has not undertakenany scrutiny in respect of Niraj’s validity much less has not assignedany reason as to why his validity would not enure to the petitioners’benefit. 12. The learned AGP would submit that after the matter wasremanded by the Supreme Court, the then committee had validatedNeerj’s tribe certificate, in all probability, relying upon the observationsof the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 5 (unnumbered) of the order. On instructions, he would submit that since Niraj’s file had gonemissing, the committee could not make any observation in theimpugned judgment and order but like other validity holders, even thecommittee intends to re-open his (Niraj) validity. 13.It is necessary to note that though the Supreme Court hadobserved that it was inconceivable to believe that when father andbrother were issued with validity certificates, the appellant - Niraj couldnot be belonging to that caste. However, after paragraph no. 5, theorder also reads that the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State had vehemently opposed such observations which wererecorded in the order by the Supreme Court in following words: 9 WP / 14851 / 2019+ “In the light of the certificates, issued in favour of theappellant’s father and brother, describing them as belonging toScheduled Tribe category : “Mahadev Koli”, it is inconceivable tobelieve that the appellant is not belonging to the said caste.But learned counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents has vehemently opposed it and submitted that itwould be in the fitness of things, if matter is remitted to TheCommittee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad,for fresh decision on merits in the light of the aforesaid documentsand in accordance with law. We accordingly do so as thesuggesion made by him is reasonable and appropriate.”14. In the light of these observations, even if the committeehad thought it fit to extend the benefit of the validities of his father andbrother to Niraj, the submission of the learned AGP that the committeewas influenced by the observations of the Supreme Court, does nothold any water, more so, when it is not the stand of the committee inthe impugned orders on the same lines. The submission beingadvanced by the learned AGP is without any foundation, either in theimpugned order or by way of any independent affidavit in reply. Thefact remains that Niraj possesses a certificate of validity which has notbeen sought to be taken exception of by the committee, in theimpugned orders and even if it has now decided to issue notice to him,till the time his validity subsists, the petitioners cannot be deprived ofderiving the benefit when they are ready to face the consequencescontemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra). 10 WP / 14851 / 2019+ 15. In light of the above, both the impugned orders are liable tobe quashed and set aside and the petitioners deserve to be grantedbenefit of having certificates of validity.16. Writ petitions are allowed partly. 17. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 18. The committee shall immediately issue certificates ofvalidity to all these petitioners of ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe. 19. The validities would be subject to the final outcome of thematters which the committee has decided to re-open, including that ofNiraj.20.The petitioners shall not be entitled to equities.21.Rule is made absolute. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/