I DATTATRAYA KALETWAD THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DATTATRAY BALIRAM KALETWAD v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
Case Details
*1* 71wp3459o23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3459 OF 2023 PALLAVI DATTATRAYA KALETWAD THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DATTATRAY BALIRAM KALETWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Vibhute Sunil M. AGP for Respondents 1 and 2/State : Shri S.P. Tiwari Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri Shrikant Patil ... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ. & DATE :- 28th March, 2023 Per Court :- 1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the Competent Committee, invalidating her tribe claim of “Mannervarlu”, which falls in the Scheduled Tribe category. 2. We have considered the detailed submissions of the learned Advocates for the respective sides. With their assistance, we have perused the petition paper book and the record available. 3. There were ten persons before the Vigilance Cell *2* 71wp3459o23 attached to the competent committee. The competent committee deemed it appropriate to conduct a joint vigilance inquiry for these ten persons. A detailed inquiry has been conducted. Each of the candidates were interrogated and in a short single sentence reason in the report dated 11.06.2021, the Vigilance Cell has opined as under:- उमेदवार यांचे वडील यांनी दि यांचे वडील यांनी दि यांनी दिद. “ २२ डिडसेंबर यांचे वडील यांनी दि- २०१९ रोजी दक्षता र यांचे वडील यांनी दिोजी दक्षता पथकाल यांनी दिा दिदल यांनी दिेल्या ल यांनी दिेखी जबाबात नमुद चाल यांनी दिीरिर यांचे वडील यांनी दिती, रूढी, प्रथा, पर यांचे वडील यांनी दिंपर यांचे वडील यांनी दिा, इ. बाबी मन्नेर यांचे वडील यांनी दिवार यांचे वडील यांनी दिल यांनी दिू अनुसूचित जमातीशी सुसंगत दिसुन येत नाहित अनुसू अनुसूचित जमातीशी सुसंगत दिसुन येत नाहितडिचत जमातीशी सुसंगत दिदसुन येत नादि,त.” 4.
Decision
The impugned order is dated 14.07.2022. Individual orders were pronounced with regard to these ten applicants. There is no conclusion by the Competent Committee that the present Petitioner is not related to any of the paternal blood relatives shown in the extensive family tree attached to the affidavit of one Venkat Malkaji Kaletwad. In the said family tree, the Petitioner is specifically indicated. 5. The grandfather of the Petitioner, Baliram, is the biological brother of Shankar, Maroti and Tukaram. The son of Maroti, namely, Balaji and the son of Tukaram, namely, Sangam, have been granted validity certificates. The Petitioner is from the *3* 71wp3459o23 branch of Linga, whose biological siblings are Yellappa, Rama, Sambhaji, Mashnaji (elder) and Mashnaji (younger). From the branch of Yellappa, whose son is Malkaji, there are four validity holders. From the branch of Linga, there are two validity holders. The present Petitioner belongs to the branch of Linga. From the branch of Sambhaji, there are four validity holders, out of which, one has been granted by the High Court. From the branch of Mashnaji (elder), there is one validity holder. From the branch of Mashnaji (younger), there are four validity holders out of which, two have been granted the validity certificates by the High Court. 6. We find from the record and from the order of this Court dated 20.12.2021, delivered in Writ Petition No.14135/2021 filed by Manvendra Balaji Kaletwad and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, that there are 14 validity certificates granted by the committee, besides four validity holders, who have succeeded in the High Court. This would make 18 validity holders from the paternal side. 7. The learned AGP has drawn our attention to page 86 of the report. The extensive analysis is read out to us. It is obvious that the committee has virtually gone in circles in analyzing the branches from amongst the family tree and the *4* 71wp3459o23 conclusion is that the first validity certificate that was granted to Ganpat Mashnaji Kaletwad, is wrongly granted. Mashnaji’s biological brother Maroti, both of whom are from the branch of Mashnaji (younger), also has a validity certificate. Madhav, who is the grandson of Mashnaji (elder), also has a validity certificate. Karmaveer, who is from the branch of Yellappa, has a validity certificate. Yellappa and both, Mashnaji (elder) and Mashnaji (younger), along with Sambhaji, Rama and Linga, are the biological brothers. 8. Looking at this case from any angle, unless the committee draws a conclusion that the present Petitioner is purely air dropped in the family tree and is not at all connected with any of the paternal blood relations, it would be most difficult to conclude that the validity certificate granted to the first person, was on account of an error committed by the committee, when 17 other persons have been granted the validity certificates and more importantly, four of them are granted by the High Court. 9. Time and again, this Court has been coming across cases wherein, even if there are 20 to 25 validity holders in the family, the committee rejects the claim of the candidate, who *5* 71wp3459o23 approaches us indicating a long list of validity holders. This Court at the Principal Seat, at Aurangabad and at Nagpur, has imposed costs on the committee for rejecting the claims merely because the intention was to reject the claim. 10. In the present case, the Petitioner is one amongst 10 candidates, who were subjected to common vigilance cell inquiry since the Vigilance Cell had no doubt that she belonged to the same blood relatives from the paternal side. 11. In these circumstances, this is a fit case for imposing heavy costs on the members of the committee. The learned AGP pleads, as usual, that the costs may not be imposed. When called upon, he is unable to assign a single reason in the backdrop of the facts recorded above, so as to justify his request that the costs should not be imposed. Though we may not impose heavy costs, we are of the view that token costs need to be imposed so as to make the committee members aware that when there are series of validity holders amongst the paternal blood relatives, the law laid down in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, needs to be considered, though we hasten to add that we never intend to mean that Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale *6* 71wp3459o23 (supra) should be blindly followed. When there are 18 validity holders under the family tree, Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) would surely apply with full force. 12. The committee is unable to bring to our notice as to whether, any case amongst these 18 paternal blood relatives, has been reopened and the proceedings have commenced. The only statement that the committee makes, before every Bench, is that the notices are issued. In Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.5611/2018 decided on 27.07.2018, this Court at the Principal Seat, has observed in paragraphs 2 to 4 and 8 as under:- “2. 3. On the earlier occasion, we found that though the petitioner produced credible evidence in the form of certificates of validity issued to her real uncle Govind Sambhaji Isankar and which concededly has been issued way back on 5th December 2005 and another certificate of validity dated 5th September 2006 to his cousin uncle Ramdas Sambhaji Isankar, the Committee finds that the certificate of validity issued to the real uncle Govind, is not free from suspicion. It is held by the Committee in the impugned order that a notice to show cause has been issued to said Govind on 14th September 2017, calling upon him to show cause as to why this certificate of validity should not be cancelled as its issuance is vitiated by fraud or suppression of material facts by the said Govind. On such a finding being rendered by the Committee, we called upon the learned AGP on the earlier two occasions to produce the record. We also indicated to the learned AGP as to how the *7* 71wp3459o23 certificate of validity is denied to the petitioner though she has established her relationship with the said Govind and only on the ground that a show cause notice has been issued, but no proceedings in furtherance thereof came to be initiated till date. The learned AGP sought time to file an affidavit. Now, the Joint Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken on record. The said affidavit admits that the certificate of validity has been issued to her real uncle and cousin uncle of the petitioner. The affidavit admits that the petitioner relies heavily on these two documents, but clarifies that there is a suppression detected from the original record of the certificate holder and that is how a show cause notice has been issued to Govind. The show cause notice could not be taken to its logical end on account of the huge pendency of cases before this Committee. In all, 7,000 matters were pending on the date when this Joint Commissioner took charge and he has reduced the pendency by 2500 cases being decided. In the circumstances, he says that appropriate orders and directions be issued by this Court. 4. We are not impressed by this explanation and the justification not to proceed against a person who has perpetrated a fraud on the public. If it is a serious allegation and which is termed as fraud, then, it should have been taken to its logical end. Mere issuance of a show cause notice in the present case would not suffice for there are two certificates of validity relied upon. The only reason assigned in the impugned order to discard them, cannot be sustained. The justification in the above affidavit is also not enough to straightaway discard the certificates of validity issued in the family. It is conceded that other reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot be supported in law.” “8. This order does not prevent the Committee from proceeding against Govind in accordance with law and needless to further clarify that in the event Govind's claim is invalidated, all the consequences *8* 71wp3459o23 shall be taken by the petitioner as well.” 13. In Manvendra Balaji Kaletwad (supra), this Court (Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala and S.G.Dige, JJ.) had recorded in pa,ragraphs 4 and 5 as under:- “4. The Committee has not disputed that the fourteen persons are paternal relatives of the petitioners and validity certificates are issued to them. Those are as follows:- nLr,sot/kkjdkps uko v- dz vtZnkj ;kaP;k’kh ukrs Lkferhus fnysyk fu.kZ; fu.kZ; fnukad ‘ksjk 1 Ekkjksrh yPNeUuk nsxywjdj Pqkyr dkdk 2 x.kir e”.kkth dysVokM Pkqyr HkkÅ 3 veksy O;adVjko dysVokM Pkqyr HkkÅ 4 xaxkjke ckykth dysVokM Pkqyr HkkÅ 5 Ckkykth foByjko dysVokM ofMy 6 jes’k e”.kkth dysVokM Pkqyr HkkÅ 7 gueYyw e”.kkth dysVokM Pkqyr HkkÅ 8 LkkSjHk ekjksrhjko nsxywjdj Pkqyr cgh.k 9 vferdqekj xksikGjko Pqkyr HkkÅ dysVokM 10 lafxrk ekjksrhjko dysVokM Pkqyr cgh.k 11 ‘kadj e”.kkth dysVokM Pqkyr HkkÅ 12 lfe{kk laHkkth dysVokM Pkqyr cgh.k 13 dSykl ‘kadj dysVokM 14 lqfer lqHkk”k dysVokM Pkqyr iqrU;k Pkqyr iqrU;k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k oS/k 19@04@2003 27@12@2004 15@04@2005 12@12@2005 29@05@2006 15@09@2006 15@09@2006 12@01@2011 19@01@2011 04@02@2011 06@04@2011 17@08@2011 08@12@2020 08@12@2020 It appears that even the father of the petitioners is 5. issued with the validity certificate. Apart from the cousin uncles, sisters and brothers, one Ku.Suprita is also directed to be issued with validity certificate under order dated 04.12.2020 in Writ Petition No.7887/2020 by this Court. The contra entries relied by the Committee in the cases of Gopal Malkaji Kaletwad and *9* 71wp3459o23 Govind Malkaji Kaletwad were also considered in the case of Balaji Vithalrao Katelwad i.e. the father of the petitioner and he has been issued with the validity certificates.” 14. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 14.07.2022 is quashed andset aside. We direct the Committee to issue the “Mannervarlu”, Scheduled Tribe validity certificate to the Petitioner, on or before 15.04.2023. 15. Needless to state, taking into account the law laid down in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra), if the file of any of the validity holders is reopened and any of them suffers invalidation and consequences thereof, the Petitioner would also be liable to suffer the same consequences. kps (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)