Bombay High Court
Tanaya Sadanand Markante vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 January, 2022
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, S. G. Dige
(1) 34-wp-358-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.358 OF 2022
TANAYA SADANAND MARKANTE ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
DATED : 10th JANUARY, 2022.
PER COURT:-
1. The tribe claim of the petitioner as
belonging to "Koli Mahadev" (Scheduled Tribe) is
invalidated.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, the tribe claim of the real sister of
the petitioner namely Vinaya D/o Sadanand Markant
was also invalidated. She filed Writ Petition
bearing No.8344/2020. This Court under judgment
and order dated 17.12.2020 directed the Committee
to issue validity certificate to her subject to the
decision in case of the proceedings reopened of the
validity holders relied by the petitioner.
3. Mr. Vibhute, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that, the real paternal uncle of
the petitioner namely Ravishankar Mashnaji Markente
(2) 34-wp-358-2022
is issued with the validity certificate of Koli
Mahadev (S.T.). The real paternal aunt of the
petitioner namely Mainawati D/o Madhavrao Redewad
is also issued with the validity certificate of
"Koli Mahadev" (S.T.). The vigilance is conducted
while issuing validity to these persons. Contra
entries were also subject matter of consideration
in those proceedings. According to the learned
counsel on erroneous ground the validity is refused
to the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee reported in 2010 (6)
Mh.L.J. 401 to submit that when paternal relatives
are granted validity, the same would be relevant
fact.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
for respondents /State submits that, paternal uncle
of the petitioner Ravishankar is issued validity
certificate on the basis of validity issued to the
maternal relative namely Govind Parmeshu Nilawar.
The same would not be relevant. According to the
learned A. G. P., the petitioner has failed in the
affinity test. Even the school entries of the
cousin grandfather of the petitioner Dhondiba Rama,
cousin aunt Gangabai Santuka and another cousin
grandfather Prakash Santuka, entry of tribe
recorded as Koli. All these contra entries were
not considered while issuing validity certificate
to the paternal uncle and aunt of the petitioner.
(3) 34-wp-358-2022
5. Mr. Vibhute, the learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that, the paternal uncle
of the petitioner namely Ravishankar Markante is
issued with the validity certificate after
considering all the documents and the validity
issued in favour of his paternal relative namely
Narsing Naroji Markante.
6. We have considered the submissions
canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
7. The petitioner has denied is relationship
with Dhondiba Rama, Gangabai Santuka, Prakash
Santuka and Yadav Rama. The committee could not
establish the relationship of the petitioner with
these persons, wherein contra entries of Koli are
recorded. The real paternal uncle and aunt of the
petitioner are issued with the validity certificate
of Koli Mahadev (S.T.). The vigilance was also
conducted in their cases. The contra entry of the
grandfather was also subject matter of
consideration.
8. Considering the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (supra), we
pass following order.
9. The impugned judgment is quashed and set
aside. The Committee shall issue validity
(4) 34-wp-358-2022
certificate of the "Koli Mahadev" (Scheduled Tribe)
to the petitioner immediately. The said
certificate would be subject to the decision that
would be taken by the committee in the case of real
paternal uncle of the petitioner relied by the
petitioner.
10. In the light of the above, the writ
petition is disposed of. No costs.
(S. G. DIGE) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/January-2022
