Jayshree Nagorao Anantwad vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 14672 Bom

                                                                          wp8943.12
                                        (1)

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.8943 OF 2012


 Jayshree D/o Nagorao Anantwad,
 Age : 28 years, Occu. Nil,
 R/o Bachegaon, Tq. Dharmabad,
 District Nanded                                  ..PETITIONER

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through Secretary to Tribal Development
          Department, Mantralaya,
          Mumbai

 2.       The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
          Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
          Through its Dy. Director (R),
          Aurangabad

 3.       The Collector, Nanded,
          Dist. Nanded

 Mr. G.K. Chinchole, Advocate, holding for Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for
 petitioner;
 Mr. S.R. Yadav, A.G.P. for respondents


                                     CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
                                                    AND
                                             S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

DATE : 7th October, 2021

PER COURT:

1. By this petition, the petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses (B) and

(C) as under:-

"(B) The impugned judgment and order dated 7/03/2012 passed by the respondent Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as Mannerwarlu, Scheduled Tribe, may kindly be quashed

wp8943.12

and set-aside by issuing an appropriate writ or order and allow the petitioner to withdraw her Tribe Claim verification proposal referred by the respondent no.3 to respondent no.2.

(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the impugned judgment and order dated 7/03/2012 passed by the respondent Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as Mannerwarlu, Scheduled Tribe, may kindly be stayed and allow the petitioner to withdraw her Tribe Claim verification proposal referred by the respondent no.3 to respondent no.2."

2. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and the learned A.G.P. on behalf of all the respondents.

3. Having gone through the petition paper-book/record available, the

following factors are glaring:-

a) The petitioner claims to be belonging to the "Mannerwarlu" -

Scheduled Tribe.

b) On 30.12.1994, the Tahsildar, Biloli issued the tribe certificate to the

petitioner.

c) On 13.5.2010, the petitioner entered the elections fray to the village

Grampanchayat by filing her nomination form for a ward reserved for

the Scheduled Tribe category.

d) The tribe claim of the petitioner was referred for validation.

wp8943.12

e) The petitioner withdrew her nomination and did not contest the

elections.

f) On 3.2.2011, the petitioner requested the District Collector through

the Tahsildar to return the tribe verification proposal.

g) A similar request is made to the Committee by sending letters dated

30.5.2011 and 24.1.2012.

h) Before sending letters for withdrawing her tribe verification proposal,

the vigilance cell report, adverse to the petitioner, was received.

i) The Committee served the vigilance report upon the petitioner by it's

communication dated 9.11.2011. It is contended that the Committee

has not received any request letter from the petitioner dated

30.5.2011 or around the said date. The Committee has received a

communication dated 23.11.2012 from the petitioner informing the

Committee that she cannot appear before the Committee due to ill

health.

j) Her father Nagorao Shankarrao Anantwad carried the tribe as

"Munurwar" recorded in the primary school admission register on

5.7.1968.

k) As the petitioner did not participate in the proceedings before the

wp8943.12

Committee, reliance was placed on the vigilance report and the

Committee came to a conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to

"Mannerwarlu" - Scheduled Tribe, vide the impugned decision dated

7.3.2012. Her tribe certificate of "Mannerwarlu" was confiscated and

cancelled.

l) Even before this Court, the petitioner canvassed that the impugned

order be set aside and her tribe proposal be disposed off as

withdrawn.

m) We granted time to the petitioner to take instructions and today,

the petitioner submits that the impugned decision of the

Committee be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is willing to

pursue her validation claim before the Committee.

n) In the open Court, we got the above statement confirmed (on two

occasions) from the learned advocate who submits that he is

making the said statement on instructions from the petitioner.

4. The learned A.G.P. has placed before us a copy of an order dated

4.11.2019 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3613 of 2018 filed by

Maroti Bandu Rekulwar vs. State of Maharashtra & others, wherein the

contention of the petitioner that he could not get a proper opportunity to

canvass his case before the Committee, was accepted by imposition of

costs of Rs.1 Lakh to be deposited with the Committee as a condition

wp8943.12

precedent for a re-hearing in the matter. This order was brought to the

notice of the learned advocate for the petitioner on 5.10.2021 and the

matter was adjourned for him to take instructions from the petitioner.

Today, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits on instructions that

she would deposit the amount of Rs.1 Lakh with the Committee. This

statement has also been repeated by the learned advocate for the

petitioner on instructions, though he kept on saying that the costs may be

reduced.

5. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed with the following

directions:-

(a) The petitioner shall deposit an amount of Rs.1 Lakh with respondent

no.2 Committee, on or before 30.11.2021. There shall be no

extension of time.

(b) Only if the petitioner deposits this amount as directed above, the

impugned order of the Committee dated 7.3.2012 shall stand

quashed and set aside after the amount is credited in the account of

the Committee. If the amount is not deposited on or before

30.11.2021, the impugned order dated 7.3.2012 shall remain intact

and shall continue to operate.

(c) Upon depositing the amount leading to the quashing of the

impugned order dated 7.3.2012, the petitioner shall appear before

wp8943.12

the Committee on 10.12.2021, at 12 noon and shall participate in

the proceedings from the stage of contesting the vigilance report

and shall extend co-operation to the Committee. She shall refrain

from seeking adjournments on unreasonable or trivial grounds.

(d) The amount of Rs.1 Lakh which would be deposited by the

petitioner, shall be credited to the State Exchequer.

(e) The proceedings before the Committee shall be completed on or

before 30.06.2022.

  (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                          (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

 amj