Prajakta Shankar Handeshwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3120 Bom

                                                                  wp8737.19
                                        1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                      WRIT PETITION NO.8737 OF 2019

 Prajakta D/o Shankar Handeshwar,
 Age-20 years, Occu:Education,
 R/o-Tamloor, Tq-Degloor,
 Dist-Nanded.
                                                       ...PETITIONER
        VERSUS

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through its Secretary,
    Higher and Technical Education Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai,

 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
    Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
    Through its Member Secretary,
    Aurangabad,

 3) The Director,
    School of Pharmacy,
    Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
    University Nanded,
    Tq. And Dist-Nanded,

 4) The Registrar,
    Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada
    University, Nanded,
    Tq. And Dist-Nanded.
                                                      ...RESPONDENTS

                         ...
    Mr.Sunil M. Vibhute Advocate for Petitioner.
    Ms.Geeta L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents No. 1 and 2.
    Respondents No. 3 and 4 served.
                         ...




::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2021                 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 15:08:02 :::
                                                                  wp8737.19
                                    2



                        AND


                        WRIT PETITION NO.8759 OF 2019

 Priyanka D/o Shankar Handeshwar,
 Age-19 years, Occu:Education,
 R/o-Tamloor, Tq-Degloor,
 Dist-Nanded.
                                                      ...PETITIONER

        VERSUS

 1) The State of Maharashtra,
    Through its Secretary,
    Higher and Technical Education Department,
    Mantralaya, Mumbai,

 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
    Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
    Through its Member Secretary,
    Aurangabad,

 3) The Associate Dean,
    College of Agriculture,
    Georai Tanda, Paithan Road,
    Tq. and Dist-Aurangabad,

 4) The Registrar,
    Vasantrao Naik Marathwada
    Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani,
    Tq. And Dist-Parbhani,

 5) The Principal,
    Nanded Education Society's,
    Science College, Nanded,
    Tq. And Dist-Nanded.
                                                   ...RESPONDENTS




::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 15:08:02 :::
                                                                    wp8737.19
                                        3


                   ...
      Mr.Sunil M. Vibhute Advocate for Petitioner.
      Mrs.Geeta L. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 and 2.
      Mr.S.G. Sangle Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
      Respondents No. 3 and 5 served.
                   ...

                CORAM:         SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND
                               ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned

counsel for the appearing parties finally, by consent.

2. The petitions are moved challenging decision of respondent

No. 2 - scheduled tribe caste certificate verification committee,

Aurangabad dated 5th July 2019, invalidating petitioners' claim to

be belonging to "Mannerwarlu", scheduled tribe.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

submits that when relationship is not disputed and there are

validity holders from the genealogy who are closely related to

petitioners, negation of the petitioners' claim is improper. He

further purports to support his submissions with reference to

judgment and order in the case of "Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s

wp8737.19

Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Others" reported in

2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 and an order passed by this court in writ

petition No. 8277 of 2020 in the case of "Prachi d/o Gokul Thakur V/s

The State of Maharashtra and Another" dated 18th December, 2020.

4. Learned AGP submits that while the claims of petitioners

would not be sustainable having regard to doubtful record and

further, when the tests of area restriction and affinity having not

been passed by petitioners, the decision by committee would not

be liable to be faulted with. There are satisfactory reasons being

given for negating the claim of petitioners.

5. It appears that validity certificates relied on by the

petitioners have not weighed with the scrutiny committee,

suspecting interpolation in record in their respect. It has also

been referred to that during vigilance in the case of Sunil

Laxman, cousin uncle of petitioners', this had not been brought

forth. The committee also suspects interpolation in school record

of Sayanna - uncle of petitioners' father, while Sunil's father

Laxman had said that Sayanna been illiterate. The committee

further appears to have referred to that cases of validity to

aforesaid relations of the petitioners are being reopened by

wp8737.19

issuing show-cause notices. The committee has also observed

that the petitioners could not be said to have passed the affinity

test as well as there being area restriction.

6. Having regard to above, the documents on which reliance

has been placed by the petitioners though appear to have been

referred to, the committee considered the same not reliable. It

appears that though the committee purports to decline the claim

with reference to documents and the validity certificates to near

relatives, and though it has been referred to that with regard to

interpolation there had been inquiry instituted in 2002, yet its

outcome has neither been referred to during the scrutiny of the

claims nor as of now. It is not the case that the documents relied

upon on behalf of the petitioners, were not taken into account

during validity claims of close relatives, referred to above. It

surfaces that in Sunil Laxman's case vigilance had taken place

and then record, it appears, had not been suspected.

7. There is no dispute on the genealogy shown by the

petitioners before the scrutiny committee. It is also not disputed

that petitioners' father Shankar and their uncle Vijay have been

issued validity certificates being of "Mannerwarlu", scheduled

wp8737.19

tribe in 2011 and 2008, respectively. Apart from aforesaid, from

the genealogy, petitioners' cousin uncle Sunil as well as aunt

Rekha (said uncle's sister) and Bharat - another cousin uncle,

have been issued validity certificates.

8. There is also no dispute on that as on the date, validity

issued to father and aforesaid relatives of the petitioners are

intact. Albeit, it is being contended that their cases are sought to

be reopened, however, as yet nothing in substance has been

placed before us beyond the statement.

9. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that we

follow the course charted by various decision of division bench

viz., writ petition No. 5641 of 2020 (Kum. Maseera Parvin d/o Mohd.

Asfaque Shaikh and Another V/s the State of Maharashtra and Others), writ

petition No. 9056 of 2019 (Ganesh s/o Sudhakar Bodhgire V/s The State of

Maharashtra) dated 21st August, 2019, and a judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of "Raju Ramsing Vasave V/s Mahesh Deorao

Bhivapurkar and Others" reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54.

10. It has been referred to that if proceedings for cancellation

of tribee validity holders are answered against the certificate

wp8737.19

holders, it would be open for the committee to issue show cause

notice to petitioners, as to why validity certificate granted to

them should not be cancelled and keeping it open for the

committee to take those proceedings to its logical end. The

decisions even refer to that certificate issued to the petitioner,

would be subject to outcome of proceedings for cancellation of

validity issued in favour of blood relatives.

11. Having regard to decisions, facts and circumstances and

forgoing discussion, it appears to be expedient to set aside the

impugned order and direct issuance of validity certificates to

petitioners, subject to decision in re-opened cases.

12. Impugned order dated 5th July, 2019 passed by respondent

No. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee,

Aurangabad is set aside. Respondent No. 2 Committee shall

forthwith issue validity certificates to the petitioners as belonging

to "Mannerwarlu" scheduled tribe. The certificates would be

subject to decision that would be taken by the committee in the

proceedings reopened of the validity holders relied upon by the

petitioners. In case, validity certificates issued to the validity

holders relied upon by the petitioners are cancelled, then the

wp8737.19

petitioners would not be in a position to claim any equities and it

would be open for the committee, if the committee is of the view

that validity certificates obtained by the validity holders are by

playing fraud, then the committee may resort to action against

the petitioners as would be available in law.

13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Writ petitions are

disposed of.

14. Needless to refer to that this order shall not influence

proceedings reopened by respondent No. 2 committee.

 [ABHAY AHUJA, J.]                    [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

 asb/FEB21