Kalyani Harichandra Sapkal And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8118 Bom

                                      1                              wp 4111.21

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4111 OF 2021

          Kalyani Harishchandra Sapkal
          and another                                  ..   Petitioners

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra and others          ..   Respondents

 Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioners .
 Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
 Shri Sujit D. Joshi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4

                                  WITH
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4164 OF 2021

          Harishchandra Namdev Sapkal                  ..   Petitioner

                   Versus

          The State of Maharashtra and others          ..   Respondents

 Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioners in both
 matters.
 Shri R. P. Gour, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

                           CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL AND
                                      SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.

DATE : 20.08.2022.

FINAL ORDER :

. We have heard both the sides finally.

2. These are the petitions by father and two issues aggrieved by the common judgment and order passed by the Scheduled

2 wp 4111.21

Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating their claims of being 'Koli Malhar'.

3. After hearing both the sides for a while, it transpires that several validities of the near relatives were pointed out to the Committee, but all of those have been discarded by observing that the original validity holder Daulat Yeshuba Supkal's claim was declined on 30.10.1991 and all subsequent validities were obtained by suppressing invalidation of claim being put forth by Daulat.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioners points out that Daulat Yeshuba Sapkal had challenged the order dated 30.10.1991 by preferring statutory appeal and his appeal was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner by the judgment and order dated 27.10.1994. He further points out that a copy of that order was also produced before the Committee on 15.09.2020 (Exhibit - D).

5. Mr. Yawalkar, learned Additional Government Pleader in Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2021 and Mrs. Gour, learned Assistant Government Pleader in Writ Petition No. 4164 of 2021 fairly concede the fact that a copy of the order was produced and is available in the file.

6. Prima facie this was one of the reasons for the Scrutiny Committee to refuse to grant validities but it was decisive one. Needless to state that if Daulat's appeal was allowed and he was

3 wp 4111.21

held to be entitled to have the validity, certainly it was a crucial circumstance and material piece of evidence which had the potential of affecting final outcome of decision by the Committee. Such a vital piece of evidence inspite of being available on record was not looked into.

7. In our considered view, therefore, this is a fit case which requires remand. The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned common judgment and order is quashed and set aside. Matters are remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh, in accordance with law on all counts including the reference to the decision in favour of Daulat Yesuba Sapkal in his appeal. The scrutiny committee shall take the decision on its own merits as early as possible.

8. The writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

bsb/Aug. 22