High Court
Legal Reasoning
WP 15349 23.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 15349 OF 20231)Vishwajeet s/o Laxman BotleAge 25 years, Occ. Student.2)Ajeet s/o Laxman Botle,Age 28 years, Occ. Student,Both r/o. Hattarga Tq. Nilanga,Dist. Latur…PetitionersVERSUS1)The State of Maharashtra2)The Scheduled Tribe CertificateScrutiny Committee, Kinwat Officeat Aurangabad, through itsMember Secretary…Respondents…Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Vivek U. JadhavAdvocate for Respondent nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. P.S. PatilCORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.DATE: 12.07.2024PER COURT : By invoking the powers of this Court under Article 226 of theConstitution of India in the light of sub Section 2 of Section 7 of theMaharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, the petitioners are challenging the orderpassed by respondent no. 2-scrutiny committee refusing to validate their‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe certificates.2.The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioners’ father possesses a certificate of validity issued by the then1/7 WP 15349 23.odtcommittee in the year 2009 and that alone should have been the basis forthe committee to grant certificates of validity to the petitioners. He wouldthen submit that the committee has overlooked the validity of their father byreferring to some contrary/manipulated record stated to have been revealedduring the vigilance enquiry. Once the then committee, by resorting to theprocedure of undertaking a vigilance enquiry had granted a certificate ofvalidity, the present committee had no power and jurisdiction to takeexception to the order of the earlier committee on the specious ground ofalleged fraud. The committee has committed an error in refusing to validatethe petitioners’ tribe certificates.3.Independently, the learned advocate for the petitioners would advertour attention to the oldest birth record in Form 14 of his grandfatherMadhav Maruti, and the revenue record in the name of great grandfatherMaruti Krishna. The ground assigned by the committee is unsustainable. Inspite of the vigilance officer having not disputed its genuineness, thecommittee has refused to consider it on a fragile plea that this record is of astranger, unrelated to the petitioners. He would advert our attention to thephotocopies of both these records, wherein these two individuals have beenexpressly described as ‘Koli Mahadev’ and the documents being of 1351 Faslicorresponding to 1941 A.D. and 1359 Fasli corresponding to 1949 A.D. 4.Per contra, the learned A.G.P. would support the order. He wouldsubmit that it is a well reasoned order. The committee has considered everypiece of evidence and has assigned plausible reasons. The petitioners and hisancestors are residents of Hattarga (Ha) Tq. Nilanga, whereas the revenuerecord and the birth record of 1359 and 1351 Fasli are of different villages.There is nothing to demonstrate that these two individuals are from thepetitioners’ family, and no fault can be found with the observations of thecommittee that this record could be of some other individual.5.The learned A.G.P. would further submit that even the committee has2/7 WP 15349 23.odtdemonstrated as to how the petitioners and their father are unscrupulous.They have made an attempt to practise fraud by leading fabricated evidence.Though the petitioners had relied upon some records of Gulbarga Court,nothing could be traced when the Court was approached. Though someschool record of Zilla Parishad Primary School Kasarshirsi was produced tosubstantiate the claim, when the vigilance enquiry was conducted, no suchrecord was traceable with the school. The headmaster had informed aboutthe relevant record having been sent to the committee for inspection. Thecommittee on inspection noticed that entry at Sr. No. 837, was in respect ofsome other student and not the great-grandfather of the petitioners as wastried to be made out. This conduct of the petitioners in resorting tofabricated record disentitles them from claiming any relief.6.As far as the validity possessed by the petitioners’ father is concerned,the learned A.G.P. would submit that there are several circumstancesindicating that he had practised fraud on the then committee in obtainingthe certificate of validity. Contrary record was not produced, no properenquiry was conducted and no fault can be found with the committee’sstand of undertaking a fresh scrutiny of his validity in the light of decisionsin the matters of (1) Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkarand ors; 2009(1) Mh.L.J. SC 1, (2) Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State ofMaharashtra in Civil Appeal No. 5778/2015 decided on 29.07.2015 and (3)Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.1954/2009 decided on 22/08/2012.7.We have heard both the sides and considered the record.8.Admittedly, the petitioners’ father possesses a certificate of validityissued way back in the year 2009 by the then committee. Even if thecommittee, in the impugned order, has tried to demonstrate that he hadpractised fraud in obtaining the certificate of validity, in our considered view,it would not be appropriate for this Court to undertake any scrutiny of such3/7 WP 15349 23.odtallegations since he is not before us. Besides, the issue regarding fraud canonly be gone into, considered and decided if the committee undertakes afresh scrutiny of his matter by issuing a show cause notice to him and byfollowing due process of law. Till the time the certificate of validity issued tohim is not finally revoked and cancelled, the petitioners cannot be deprivedof deriving the benefit of such validity. Needless to state that the decision ofthe committee again would be subject to challenge before this Court underSection 7(2) of the Maharashtra Act, XXIII of 2001. It would be a longdrawn process. When the petitioners are of tender age and are seeking tomake careers by taking admission in the professional courses, they cannot beallowed to wait for the conclusion of the father’s matter, which thecommittee intends to reopen.9.Besides, the original file of the petitioners’ father, which has beenmade available to us, clearly demonstrates that the then committee hadfollowed due process of law before holding him entitled to have a certificateof validity. Vigilance enquiry was conducted. Documents were solicited andby a reasoned order, he was found entitled to have a certificate of validity. Itcannot be said by any stretch of imagination that he was issued with acertificate of validity either without following due process or withoutassigning reasons. These two precisely are the parameters laid down in thematter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. Stateof Maharashtra and others; 2023(2) Mh.L.J.785. Paragraph no. 22 readsthus :“22. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is foundin many cases. These are the cases where the applicant reliesupon caste validity certificates issued to his blood relatives.Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be issued either bythe Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the directionsissued in Kumari Madhuri Patil or constituted under the Rulesframed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny4/7 WP 15349 23.odtCommittee must ascertain whether the certificate is genuine.Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whetherthe applicant has established that the person to whom thevalidity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is hisblood relative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish hisprecise and exact relationship with the person to whom thevalidity certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry willhave to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validitycertificate has been granted to the blood relative of theapplicant by the concerned Scrutiny Committee after holdingdue enquiry and following due procedure. Therefore, if theScrutiny Committee has issued a validity certificatecontemplated in terms of the decision in the case of KumariMadhuri Patil, the examination will be whether the enquirycontemplated by the said decision has been held. If thecertificate relied upon is issued after coming into force of the2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertainwhether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed theprocedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or the SCRules, as the case may be. For this verification, the ScrutinyCommittee can exercise powers conferred on it by Section 9(d)by requisitioning the record of the concerned Caste ScrutinyCommittee, which has issued the validity certificate to the bloodrelative of the applicant. If the record has been destroyed, theScrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry hasbeen held on the basis of the decision of the Caste ScrutinyCommittee by which caste validity has been granted to theblood relative of the applicant. If it is established that thevalidity certificate has been granted without holding a properinquiry or without recording reasons, obviously, the castescrutiny committee cannot validate the caste certificate only onthe basis of such validity certificate of the blood relative.”10.In view of such a ratio, once it is seen that the petitioners’ father was5/7 WP 15349 23.odtissued with a certificate of validity by following due process of law and bypassing a reasoned order, the petitioners cannot be denied its benefit.11.So far as the two old entries in the name of the petitionersgrandfather and great-grandfather are concerned, at the outset, it isnecessary to note that the vigilance report does not expressly entertain anydoubt about genuineness of this record, even though an attempt has beenmade by the learned A.G.P. to demonstrate that both records aremanipulated one, which is not even the stand of the scrutiny committee inthe impugned judgment and order.12.Be that as it may, the committee has refused to consider such recordonly on the ground that neither of them mentions the surname of theindividual, and these are the records of some different village other than thenative of the petitioners. One wonders as to why, as indicated in thevigilance report in paragraph no. 4 when this record was collected by thevigilance officer during enquiry, it if it was not pertaining to the ancestors ofthe petitioners. For whatever reason when the vigilance officer himself hascollected such record, it is unbecoming for the committee to discard it forthe reasons mentioned herein above, more so when the vigilance report doesnot seek to take exception to such record.13.It may be that, in the process of substantiating the claim, a party mayresort to, some manipulation. However, the principle of ‘falsus in uno, falsusin omnibus’ is not recognized in India. The enquiry may reveal some inconsistentrecord and at times even there could be some manipulated record. It is for thecommittee to separate grain from the chaff. As has been laid down in the matterof Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims andOrs; (2012) 1 SCC 113, the oldest record would have a greater probativevalue. Aforementioned revenue and birth record of the petitioners’ greatgrandfather and grandfather, genuineness of which has not been doubted,in itself would be sufficient to substantiate the petitioners’ claim.6/7
Decision
WP 15349 23.odt14.In any case, since the petitioners’ father possesses a certificate ofvalidity, as is mentioned herein above they are entitled to derive the benefit.15.The writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned order is quashed andset aside. The committee shall immediately issue certificates of validity tothe petitioners as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe. Its validitywould be subject to the final outcome of their father’s matter, which thecommittee has decided to reopen. The petitioners shall not be entitled toclaim equities. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)mkd/-7/7