Sanjana d/o Sunildatta Jakkawad v. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Tribal Development Department Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai
Case Details
2024:BHC-AUG:26633-DB call paper.WP.12032.24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.12032 OF 2024 Sanjana d/o Sunildatta Jakkawad … PETITIONER 1. 2. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary Tribal Development Department Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee Kinwat Division CIDCO, Chatrapati Sambhajinagar through its Dy. Director (R) … Advocate for petitioner: Mr. Anil P. Piratwad Addl.G.P. for respondent/State : Mr. P.S. Patil … RESPONDENTS … CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 24.10.2024 ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) : The petitioner is challenging the order of the respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee dated 24.10.2024, whereby, it has refused to validate her ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificate. 2. Considering the urgency, inasmuch as, the petitioner intends to take admission in the current admission process for a professional course, we have heard both the sides finally at the stage of admission. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father Sunildatta, uncle Parmeshwar and their third degree cousin Hanmant Maneji Jakkawad possess certificates of validity, which were 1/6 call paper.WP.12032.24.odt issued by following due process of law and the petitioner is entitled to derive benefit of these validities. Even if the Committee has now attributed fraud against the validity holders and has decided to undertake rescrutiny of the certificates of validity issued to them, till the time it is able to undertake the exercise successfully, the petitioner cannot be deprived of having its benefit. She is ready to run the risk of all the consequences as spoken about in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.;WP No.6320/2017. 4. Learned AGP would strongly oppose even the request for grant of conditional validity. He would submit that Committee has assigned cogent and plausible reasons while demonstrating that the validity holders had concealed contrary record of older times, wherein her blood relatives were described in the school record as ‘Munurwar’. It was revealed in the vigilance inquiry that there was even an attempt at manipulation of the school record of petitioner’s grandfather Rajeshwar, wherein, the original entry in the caste column of ‘Munarwar’ was distorted by adding letter ‘lu’ in a different ink and handwriting. This being the oldest entry of 14.07.1956, that would be an additional ground to recall the validities. 5. Learned AGP would further submit that Hanmant Maneji
Facts
Jakkawad was the first validity holder who had relied upon validities of couple of individuals not related to him by blood and therefore benefit of such dubious certificate of validity of Hanmant cannot be extended to the 2/6 call paper.WP.12032.24.odt petitioner. Since petitioner’s father had obtained certificate of validity relying upon Hanumant’s validity, even that cannot enure to petitioner’s benefit. 6. In the matter of validity holder Parmeshwar a law officer had acted as a Secretary of the Committee contrary to the composition prescribed by the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 and the rules framed thereunder. 7. Lastly, the learned AGP would submit that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal and substitute its views in place of the plausible view taken by the Committee based on correct appreciation of all the facts, circumstances and evidence. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. 9. True it is that fraud would vitiate every solemn act. The Committee has endeavoured to demonstrate as to how Hanmant Maneji Jakkawad, who was first validity holder in the family, had practised fraud and has decided to undertake a fresh scrutiny thereof. Admittedly, Hanmant is not before us and fraud being a serious allegation which has
Legal Reasoning
to be proved to the hilt, it would not be appropriate for this Court in the present matter to undertake objective scrutiny of the inference drawn by the Committee in the impugned judgment and order alleging fraud against Hanmant. 3/6 call paper.WP.12032.24.odt 10. However, it would be necessary to ascertain if Hanmant was issued the certificate of validity by following due process of law as contemplated and expected by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2023 SCC Online SC 326. 11. The original file of Hanmant has been made available to us. A vigilance inquiry was conducted and for a reasoned order he was held entitled to have a certificate of validity. 12. True it is, as has been pointed out by the learned AGP, the judgment in the matter of Hanmant uses pre-printed computerize output. However, additionally, several portions have been described expressly writing those in hand. Meaning thereby that though the Committee has used some printed output of a computer, wherein, many blanks were filled in hand, description of at least three documents has been written by hand. We are, therefore, of considered view that it cannot be said that the decision to grant validity to Hanmant was unmindful rather he was issued with a certificate mindfully considering the documents produced by him. 13. So far as, the inference of the Committee in the impugned judgment about Hanmant having derived benefit of validities of the individuals who were not related to him by blood, the original file would reveal that it was not a matter that Hanmant had misrepresented the Committee while relying upon the validities of those two individuals. 4/6 call paper.WP.12032.24.odt Original affidavit of validity holder Laxman Tukaram Kanle reveals that he had expressly disclosed relation with Hanmant stating that Hanmant was his sister’s son. Similarly, affidavit of one Premla Gangaram Sunkwad who herself was possessing a certificate of validity was also produced. She had expressly stated that he was related to her distantly through her married sister. Validity holder Balaji Maruti Kondre had also filed affidavit stating that the petitioner was the son of his cousin sister. Even in the order of the Committee, it had not relied upon these validities of the aforementioned three individuals by describing them to be the validities of the blood relatives from paternal side. Consequently it cannot be said that while relying upon the validities of these three individuals Hanmant had misled the Committee by giving a false suggestion. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to derive benefit of Hanmant’s validity which is still intact, more so, when she is ready to run the risk of facing the consequences as observed in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra). 14. As is mentioned herein above, the observation of the Committee in the impugned judgment and order regarding concealment of a contrary record or manipulation in the school record of the grandfather would be the matters which would be directly and substantially in issue in the matter to be reopened by the committee for recalling the validity. Therefore, we should not and cannot undertake that exercise herein which potentially could have a bearing on the inquiry to be conducted. 5/6 call paper.WP.12032.24.odt 15. The fact remains that Hanmant was issued with certificate of validity by following due process of law. There is no dispute about petitioner being his blood relative from the paternal side and therefore she is entitled to have a certificate of validity co-terminus with his validity. 16. 17.
Decision
The writ petition is allowed partly. Impugned judgment and order dated 24.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. 18. Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue certificate of validity to petitioner of ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe immediately in prescribed proforma. 19. Same shall be subject to outcome of reverification undertaken by the scrutiny committee of the earlier validity holder. 20. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] JUDGE [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE habeeb 6/6