Vaibhav S/O Govindrao Gajalwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7738 Bom

Pvr                                       1                                  WP10430-17.doc



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           Writ Petition No. 10430 OF 2017

Vaibhav S/o Govindrao Gajalwad                                  ...Petitioner
      Versus
1.The State Of Maharashtra 
2.Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes
3.Commissioner & Competent Authority
4.Dr.Shankarrao Chavan, 
government Medical College, Nanded.                             ...Respondents



Mr.S.M. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner.

Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate  General a/w. Mr.Akshay Shinde, Special 
Counsel and Mr. Sandeep Babar, AGP for the Respondents.
                                     ---

                                 CORAM :  SHANTANU KEMKAR &
                                          G. S. KULKARNI, JJ.

OCTOEBR 3rd, 2017 DATE :

---

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Shantanu Kemkar, J.)

. Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard

finally.

2. Challenging the order dated 2nd September, 2017 ("Exhibit E")

passed by the second respondent - Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled

Tribes, Aurangabad, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226

of the Constitution of India.

Pvr 2 WP10430-17.doc

3. Briefly stated the petitioner had applied for grant of caste

certificate claiming himself to be "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe. The

competent authority after necessary inquiry issued caste certificate to the

petitioner of he being "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe. The said certificate

was thereafter submitted for its validation before the second respondent

committee.

4. In support of his claim for validation of the caste certificate,

the petitioner submitted as many as thirteen documents before the second

respondent committee. Out of these documents, one of the document was

the validity certificate pertaining to the petitioner's cousin uncle Ashok

Laxmanrao Gajalwad and a document of the year 1955 mentioning therein

the case of the petitioner's grandfather as "Koli Mahadev".

5. The second respondent committee after getting vigilance cell

report, by the impugned order rejected the petitioner's caste validation

claim on the ground that in the documents collected by vigilance cell

officer the entry in respect of relatives of the petitioner, the mention is

either of "Koli Mahadev" or "Mahadev Koli" and therefore, the petitioner's

claim cannot be accepted.

6. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the

reasons assigned by the committee discarding the validation certificate of

his cousin uncle cannot be sustained. He submits that the committee has

Pvr 3 WP10430-17.doc

raised doubt about the petitioner being "Mahadev Koli" scheduled tribe on

the basis of the vigilance cell's report to the effect that the documents of

the petitioner nephew there is mention of "Koli Mahadev" or "Mahadev

Koli" or "M.Koli". It is the case of the petitioner that this is not the vital

discrepancy in the documents so as to discard the caste validity certificate

of the petitioner's cousin uncle and also to discard the other documents

submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim.

7. The petitioner in support of his submissions placed reliance on

various orders passed by the Division Bench in the case "Devika S.

Gangawane vs. State of Maharashtra" (Writ Petition No.7305 of 2014

dated 27th January, 2015), in the case "Mohammad Munaf Mohammad

Hanif Bedre & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors." (Writ Petition

No.6614 of 2016 decided on 19th July, 2016) and in the case "Apoorva

d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee & Ors."

(2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401), as also the Supreme Court in the case "Raju

Ramsing Vasave vs Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors." (2008(9) SCC

54).

8. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that in the absence of

any fraud, misrepresentation or order being without jurisdiction or there is

ignorance of any vital document while granting previous validity

certificate, the validity certificate of the near relative of the claimant cannot

Pvr 4 WP10430-17.doc

be discarded. In the present case, the petitioner's cousin uncle was granted

caste validation certificate after due inquiry and the said caste validation

certificate has attained finality.

9. In the circumstances, in the absence of the aforesaid grounds,

it was not appropriate for the committee to have discarded the said validity

certificate submitted by the petitioner.

10. Even otherwise, we find that all the documents which the

petitioner has submitted as also which the Vigilance Cell has collected,

there is clear mention of the fact that the relatives of the petitioner as also

the petitioner belongs to 'Koli Mahadev"/"Mahadev Koli" schedued tribe. It

is also not the case of the respondents that the genealogy submitted by the

petitioner is not correct.

11. In the circumstances, in our considered view the impugned

order passed by the Scrutiny Committee for Scheduled Tribes is

unsustainable.

12. As a result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set

aside. We direct the Scrutiny Committee to issue forthwith to the

Petitioner the caste validation certificate, on receipt of an authenticated

copy of this order.

                  (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)                (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)