Writ Petition No. 13445 of 2023 · Bombay High Court

13445.23wp etc(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13445 OF 2023 Asha d/o Ramlu Kamlawar, Age: 33 years, Occu: Service (Asst. Store Keeper),R/o. Natkar Galli, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded, At present : Balaji Nagar, Taroda Bk.,Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322. The Commissioner, Water Conservation Department, AurangabadPaithan Road (WALMI), Aurangabad3.Deputy Director (Research)and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe CertificateVerification Committee, Kinwat, Headquarter Aurangabad, Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ….RESPONDENTSAND WRIT PETITION NO. 13165 OF 20231.Krishna s/o Ramlu Kamlawar, Age: 24 years, Occu: Student,R/o. Natkar Galli, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded,

13445.23wp etc(2) 2. Bajrang s/o Vishwanath Kamlawar, Age: 28 years, Occu: Student,R/o. Natkar Galli, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded,….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322. Deputy Director (Research)and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe CertificateVerification Committee, Kinwat, Headquarter Aurangabad, Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad ….RESPONDENTSAND WRIT PETITION NO. 13461 OF 20231.Vishwanath s/o Kerba Kamlawar, Age: 57 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Natkar Galli, Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded,….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-322. Deputy Director (Research)and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe CertificateVerification Committee, Kinwat,

13445.23wp etc(3) Headquarter Aurangabad, Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad3.Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded4. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Degloor, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioners in all petitionsMr S. R. Wakale, A.G.P. for respective respondents/State in all petitionsMs Y. S. Thorat, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4 in WP No. 13461/2023 CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 13th February, 2025JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the parties.

By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the common order dated05/10/2023, passed by respondent/Scheduled Tribe CertificateVerification Committee, invalidating their claim for ‘Koli Mahadev’

13445.23wp etc(4) Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of the MaharashtraScheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (VimuktaJatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and SpecialBackward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) CasteCertificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.

The scrutiny committee has concluded that the petitionershave failed to establish their claim on the basis of documentaryevidence and also on account of failure to prove affinity with ‘KoliMahadev’ Scheduled Tribe.

Learned advocate Mr C. R. Thorat appearing for thepetitioners in all these petitions has submitted that the scrutinycommittee has adopted perverse approach in discarding validitycertificates in favour of close blood relatives of the petitioners. It issubmitted that reasons stated to discard the validity certificates areerroneous, and on the strength of documentary evidence, the casteclaim of the petitioners ought to have been validated.

Advocate Mr S. R. Wakale, learned A.G.P. forrespondents/State and learned advocate Ms Yogita Thorat forrespondent Nos.3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.13461/2023 have opposed

13445.23wp etc(5) the petitions and justified the impugned order. They have submittedthat no reliance can be placed on the validity of Sangita RamluKamlawar, dated 06/04/2011, which was granted without consideringother documents of the petitioners’ family and which was granted bythe committee comprising of Mr V. S. Patil, who had indulged inserious irregularities in deciding the cases of caste claims. They havesubmitted that the petitioners are bound to establish their claimsindependently and cannot solely rely on validities of blood relatives.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.

It has to be noted that the petitioners have relied uponvalidity dated 06/04/2011 of Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar and have filedthe copy of vigilance cell enquiry report in her matter. Relationship of Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar with petitioners being real sister of Asha and Krishna, cousin sister of Bajrang and niece of Vishwanath is notdisputed. Even the affidavit of genealogy filed by Bajrang VishwanathKamlawar, dated 22/09/2014 depicts the relations. The objectionabout validity of Sangita only on account of Mr V. S. Patil beingmember of the committee cannot sustain since validity of Sangitawas granted on the basis of vigilance cell enquiry report and

13445.23wp etc(6) other documents referred in the report. It may be seen that validity of Sangita is not challenged and the same is in force.

In view of the settled position of law laid down in thematters of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat SwarakshanSamiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 SupremeCourt 1657] and Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional CasteCertificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401], considering the validity in favour of their blood relatives, petitioners are entitled to derive its benefits.

Although, respondents have raised objection tovalidity of Sangita, in view of the judgment of the Principal Seatdated 27/07/2018 in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. TheState of Maharashtra and others, [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363](Writ Petition No.5611/2018), the petitioners are entitled for grant ofvalidity certificate, which has to be co-terminus with valiidity of Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar. Hence, we pass the following order :-(a)The writ petitions are partly allowed. (b)The impugned order dated 05/10/2023, passed byrespondent/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside to theextent of the petitioners.

13445.23wp etc(7) (c)Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to issuevalidity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to the ‘KoliMahadev’ Scheduled Tribe in the prescribed format, which shallbe subject to outcome of validity of Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar, which the respondent/committee has decided to reopen. (d)The petitioners shall not claim any equities.

Rule is made partly absolute in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk