Miss. Pradnya D/O Balaji Gaikwad ... vs Vice President And Member Sec., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4526 Bom

         18-WP-3828-21-                                                                           1/4


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3828 OF                      2021

         PETITIONERS :-               1. Miss.Pradnya Balaji Gaikwad, aged 23
                                         yrs, occup. Student.

                                      2. Mr.Suraj Balaji Gaikwad, aged 21 years,
                                         occup. Student,

                                           Both r/o Shriram Nagar, Near Govt.
                                           Hospital, Bhadrawati, Tah.Bhadawari,
                                           district Chandrapur.

                                              ...VERSUS...

         RESPONDENTS :-                1. Vice President and Member Secretary,
                                          The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
                                          Scrutiny      Committee,      Gadchiroli,
                                          Complex Area near Z.P. School,
                                          Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli.

                                       2. The          Sub-Divisional,            Commissioner
                                            Warora, District Chandrapur.
         --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr.Ananta Ramteke, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.N.R.Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & SMT. M.S.JAWALKAR JJ.

                                            DATE         : 28.04.2022.


         ORAL          J U D G M E N T (Per :Sunil B.Shukre, J.)



                          Heard.

Kavita
          18-WP-3828-21-                                                   2/4

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The petitioners are claiming to be belonging to Mana

Scheduled Tribe, but their claim has been invalidated by the

Scrutiny Committee i.e. respondent No.1, which disbelieved the

documentary evidence produced on record by the petitioners and

which found that the petitioners failed to answer satisfactorily the

affinity test. Amongst the documentary evidence submitted by the

petitioners, two documents were of great significance. They were

the validity certificates issued to Deorao Ramhari Gaikwad and

Ajay Vithhal Gaikwad, both cousin uncles of the petitioners from

paternal side. Insofar as their relationship with the petitioners by

consanguinity is concerned, there is no dispute. But, the

Committee ignored these documents on the ground that they were

issued without obtaining any vigilance inquiry report. Rejection by

the Scrutiny Committee on such a ground, in our view, is not

permissible, if we take into consideration the background against

which both these validities came to be issued to Deorao Gaikwad

and Ajay Gaikwad.

Kavita
          18-WP-3828-21-                                                    3/4

Both these validities have been issued on the basis of the

decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil

Application No.5270 of 2004. Once, the Hon'ble Apex Court of this

land directs the Scrutiny Committee, to issue a certificate of

validity to the claimant, the direction is binding not only upon that

authority, but also upon all those authorities, which may have an

occasion to consider the compliance with these directions.

Therefore, the validity certificates issued in compliance with the

directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court were also binding

upon the respondent No.1 Committee and it was not open to the

respondent No.1 Committee to question the correctness of these

validity certificates only on the ground that they were issued

without there being any vigilance inquiry report. Questioning the

correctness of the said validity certificates on the said ground

amounts, in effect, to non- compliance with the directions given by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is not permissible in law. This

view has also been reiterated by this Court in the recent judgment

of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Mumbai in the case of

Bharat Bhagwant Tayade Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition

No.11617 of 2017 decided on 15.03.2022, to which one of us was

Kavita 18-WP-3828-21- 4/4

the part.

4. Thus, we find that there was no reason for the

Scrutiny Committee to have rejected the validity certificates

granted to Deorao Gaikwad and Ajay Gaikwad and they ought to

have been accepted as conclusive proof of status of the petitioners

as they belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe. Considering these two

validity certificates, we find that petitioners have reasonably

proved their claim as belonging to Mana Scheduled Tribe.

5. In the result, we find that this Writ Petition deserves

to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly. The impugned order is

hereby quashed and set aside.

6. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue validity

certificates to both the petitioners that they belonging to Mana

Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from the date of

receipt of the copy of the order.

7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

                                                 JUDGE                              JUDGE

    Kavita
Signed By:KAVITA PRAVIN
TAYADE
P. A.

Signing Date:30.04.2022 11:31