Bombay High Court
Jay Ramesh Anantwar Thr Power Of ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 15 January, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1
W.P.703-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 703 OF 2021
Jay s/o Ramesh Anantwar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents
Mr G.K. Chinchole, Advocate h/f Mr G.B. Patunkar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr P.S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for respondents no.1 and 2
Mr M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for respondent no.3
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA AND
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 15th January 2021
PER COURT :
1. The caste claim of the petitioner as Mannervarlu - Scheduled Tribe is
invalidated.
2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the father of the
petitioner is issued with the validity certificate of Mannervarlu - Scheduled
Tribe after conducting the vigilance. The entries referred to by the petitioner
in the present case and observed by the Committee to be manipulated were
the subject matter of consideration while granting validity to the father of the
petitioner. It is further submitted that the real paternal aunt of the petitioner
namely Anita is also issued with the validity certificate of Mannervarlu -
Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010 (6)
Mh.L.J. 401 to submit that validity issued to the paternal relative is a relevant
fact. The learned Advocate relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in case of
Anand vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors.
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 to submit that the affinity test is not a litmus test.
W.P.703-2021
3. The learned A.G.P. submits that at the time of vigilance in case of father
of the petitioner the entries referred to in the school record of the father and aunt
of the petitioner were considered by the vigilance. However, the vigilance at that
time did not consider the interpolation. The same has been considered now. It
is further submitted that the petitioner has failed in the affinity test.
4. If we accept the submissions of learned A.G.P., there were two vigilance
reports contrary to each other and while granting validity certificate to the
grandfather of the petitioner the Committee and vigilance did not observe
interpolation. It is submitted that show cause notices are issued to father and
aunt of the petitioner.
5. The judgment in case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (supra) would be relevant. The show
cause notices are issued to the validity holders relied upon by the petitioner.
6. In light of that, we pass the following order.
7. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
8. The Committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner as
Mannervarlu - Scheduled Tribe immediately.
9. The said validity certificate would be subject to the decision that would
be taken by the Committee in the proceedings re-opened of the validity
holders relied by the petitioner.
10. Writ petition disposed of. No costs.
( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)
vvr
