Bombay High Court
Rutuja Devanand Mekale vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 January, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, Shrikant Dattatray Kulkarni
1 wp 9046.2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1015 WRIT PETITION NO. 9046 OF 2020
RUTUJA DEVANAND MEKALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. A. S. Golegaonkar h/f. Mr. Palnitkar S. R.
AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 & 5:
Mr. P. S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No. 4: Mr. R. B. Bhosle
Advocate for Respondent No. 6: Mr. S. G. Karlekar
...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE: 14th JANUARY, 2021
PER COURT:
1. The tribe claim of the petitioner as Koli
Mahdev, Scheduled Tribe is invalidated.
2. Mr. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the validity certificate
is issued in favour of the father of the
petitioner after conducting vigilance. The entries
in the school record of the petitioner's father,
petitioner's paternal aunt, petitioner's
grandfather were all subject matter of
consideration while granting validity to the
2 wp 9046.2020
father of the petitioner. The learned Counsel
submits that the Committee has relied upon the
entries of some of the persons who are not
relatives of the petitioner. The petitioner has
denied the relationship. The learned Counsel
relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of
this court in case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No. 1 and others reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.
3. Mr. Patil, the learned Additional Government
Pleader submits that there are numerous documents
showing the entry Koli. Even entry in the school
record of the petitioner's father Devanand and
petitioner's paternal aunt records caste as Koli;
word Mahadev has been subsequently added. The
difference in the ink is clearly visible. The
learned A.G.P. further submits that the petitioner
relied on the school entry of his grandfather
Baburao. When the vigilance visits the school they
could not find the register and some other
person's name appeared at that serial number. The
learned A.G.P. submits that the statement of one
3 wp 9046.2020
Narsing Laxman has been recorded, he has given the
genealogy. The same is separate from the one given
by the petitioner. This shows that the petitioner
is misleading.
4. Mr. Golegaonkar, the learned Counsel submits
that the petitioner was never served with the copy
of the statement of Narsing Laxman. The
relationship as has been submitted has been
subsequently denied.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed
by the learned Counsel for respective parties.
6. It is a matter of record that while granting
validity to the father of the petitioner vigilance
was conducted and the school record of the
petitioner, his father, grandfather and sister
were subject matter of consideration by the
committee. In the said vigilance report, nowhere
interpolation has been narrated by the vigilance.
There would be two vigilance reports contrary to
each other. The validity is already issued to the
father of the petitioner. The show cause notices
4 wp 9046.2020
are already issued to the father of the petitioner
as to why his validation proceeding should not be
re-opened.
7. Considering the above, we pass the following
order.
8. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
9. The committee shall issue validity
certificate to the petitioner of Koli Mahadev,
Scheduled Tribe immediately. The said validity
certificate shall be subject to the decision that
would be taken in the proceedings re-opened of the
validity holders relied by the petitioner.
10. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No
costs.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
