Jyoti D/O Jalindar Giakwad vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12944 Bom

                       (28)-WP-10505-22.doc.

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          Digitally
          signed by
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2022.12.15
          13:33:14
          +0530
                                        WRIT PETITION NO.10505 OF 2022

                       Jyoti D/o Jalindar Gaikwad                              ..Petitioner
                             Versus
                       The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         ..Respondents

                       Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/by Deepak D. Choudhari, for the
                       Petitioner.
                       Smt. P. J. Gawhane, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2/State.
                       Mr. Sandeep R. Waghmare, for the Respondent No.3.

                                                  CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE &
                                                          SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 13th DECEMBER, 2022 P.C.

1. The claim for grant of validity as belonging to Thakar, Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected vide order impugned dated 1 st August, 2022. As such, this petition.

2. By relying on the provisions of Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation and Issuance of Verification) Certificate Rules, 2003, Mr. A. V. Anturkar, learned senior counsel would invite our attention to the admitted fact that the real sister of the petitioner, Yogita holds validity which is not touched or disputed. Similarly, he has invited our attention to the validity held by Tanaji s/o Devram Gaikwad who happens to be the cousin uncle of the petitioner. The fact remains that while rejecting the validity of the petitioner, even sufficient adverse material was noticed during the

BGP. 1 of 3 (28)-WP-10505-22.doc.

vigilance cell enquiry, respondent/committee has not taken steps for cancellation of the validity issued to above referred two validity holders. When confronted, learned AGP is unable to reconcile the aforesaid position from the order of the Scrutiny Committee. We are at pains to observe that we have come across in number of matters wherein the Scrutiny Committee in spite of there being validity in favour of the blood relation has negated the claim for validity based on vigilance cell report which is quite justified, however, no steps are being taken for cancellation of validity of1 blood relation.

3. As such, the position as could be witnessed from the order impugned or similar orders is, the blood relation of the petitioner i.e. real sister holds the validity, whereas the petitioner is denied validity.

4. In the aforesaid background, we direct the Vice President or Deputy Director (Research), Secretary of the Committee to file an affidavit explaining the aforesaid anomaly. We expect the respondent while filing such affidavit to be sensitive to the provisions of Rule 12(2) of the rules referred above.

5. Let the affidavit be placed on record by 1st February, 2023.

6. There is one more issue which requires to be referred is, while passing order impugned the committee has referred to the judgment of this Court in the matter of Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid Vs. District Collector, Satara & Ors. reported in 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 473. The said judgment is relied by the committee so as to observe that the

BGP. 2 of 3 (28)-WP-10505-22.doc.

validity issued in favour of a candidate without there being any vigilance cell enquiry becomes void. We do not see such observations in the said judgment which was later on reversed by the Apex Court in the matter of District Collector, Satara & Anr. Vs. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid reported in (2019) 10 Mh.L.J. 166. As such, the findings recorded by the respondent/committee thereby declaring the validity certificate in favour of Yogita is void as without there being any authority or jurisdiction, particularly, when the judgment in the matter of Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (cited supra) does not support such view for the purpose of cancellation of validity certificate. The statute prescribes for a procedure to be adopted which is admittedly not taken recourse by the respondent/committee. We also expect the response of the said officer on the above referred default noticed in the order impugned.

7. Matter to come up for consideration on 9th February, 2023.

8. Rejoinder, if any, be placed on record within one week thereafter.

9. Ad-interim relief to continue till then.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]                    [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                           3 of 3