The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 05.10.2016 vide which it passed the order holding the tribal certificate obtained by the petitioner to be invalid, and gave directions regarding cancellation and confiscation of the certificate.
The Court observed that while ignoring those validity certificates, no finding has been recorded by the present Scrutiny Committee to the effect that this validity certificate was obtained by the father of the petitioner by playing fraud or by suppressing material facts, or by making misrepresentations to the Scrutiny Committee.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner claims to be belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe and accordingly, she obtained a tribal certificate from the Competent Authority. However, when it came to its validation by the Scrutiny Committee, things changed and Scrutiny Committee found that the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Thakur, a Scheduled Tribe, was held to be not sustainable in law, and accordingly, the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 05.10.2006 invalidated the claim and passed consequential directions regarding cancellation and confiscation of the certificate. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it is well-settled law that when several validities are granted in the paternal family of the claimant and there is no finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that those validities have been obtained by playing fraud upon the committee or by suppressing material facts or by making misrepresentations before the committee and notice issued to those claimants for cancellation of their validity certificates, Scrutiny Committee cannot discard those validity certificates.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent did not dispute the law settled on the issue by the Apex Court. He, however, submitted that the facts of each case are required to be examined on their own merits and an appropriate decision would have to be arrived at accordingly.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that in the present case, there is no dispute about the relationship between the petitioner and the persons in whose favour validity certificates have been issued. One of those persons is the father of the petitioner, who has been issued a validity certificate as he belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, by the Pune Scrutiny Committee on 16.04.2004. It is also not in dispute that while ignoring those validity certificates, no finding has been recorded by the present Scrutiny Committee to the effect that this validity certificate was obtained by the father of the petitioner by playing fraud or by suppressing material facts or by making misrepresentations to the Scrutiny Committee. It is also not in dispute that no notice seeking cancellation of the validity certificates has been issued to the paternal relatives of the petitioner.
If this is so, the Court observed, there was no reason for the Scrutiny Committee to have discarded these validity certificates; these validity certificates constitute conclusive proof of the social status of the persons to whom those validity certificates have been issued.
Further, the Court said that when the Scrutiny Committee is satisfied that the person in whose favour the validity certificate has been issued, is a blood relative of the applicant and a lawful inquiry has been conducted before issuing the validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee would have to issue validity certificate even if the applicant does not satisfy the affinity test. In the instant case, the Scrutiny Committee has found that the petitioner does not satisfy the affinity test. But the Scrutiny Committee has not found that the persons in whose favour validity certificates have been issued are not blood relatives of the petitioner. On the contrary, there is no dispute about the fact that those persons are the blood relatives of the petitioner and that they have been issued by following the proper procedure.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the petition, held that a material error has been committed by the Scrutiny Committee in ignoring the validity certificates issued to the blood relatives of the petitioner from the paternal side and failing to take into account their probative value.
Case Title: Monali Suresh Deore vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sunil B. Shukre, and Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Jain
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.1125 OF 2007
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R.K. Mendadkar
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. P.P. Kakade
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
