Saikiran Ramrao Totawar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4703 Bom

                                     1                          WP.3726-22.odt


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION No.3726 OF 2022

     1.      Saikiran Ramrao Totawar,
             Age 25 years, Occu: Student,
             R/o House No.1033, Totawar Galli,
             Tq. Degloor, District Nanded.
             Cell No.9763366321.

     2.      Ajay Satyanarayan Totawar,
             Age 27 years, Occu: Nil - Student,
             R/o House No.1033, Totawar Galli,
             Tq. Degloor, District Nanded.
             Cell No.9403210719.

     3.      Ambika Rajeshwar Totawar,
             Age 19 years, Occu: Student,
             R/o House No.1033, Totawar Galli,
             Tq. Degloor, District Nanded.
             Cell No.8485851690                ... Petitioners

                      Versus

     1.      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through its Secretary,
             Tribal Development Department,
             Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

     2.      The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
             Scrutiny Committee,
             Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad,
             Through its Member Secretary.

     3.      The Director,
             Walchand College of Engineering,
             (Govt. aided autonomous Institute),
             Vishrambag, Dist. Sangli 416 415. M.S.
             Email : [email protected]
             [email protected]      ... Respondents
                                      ...
                Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A. S. Deshpande.
                 AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. S. K. Tambe.
                                      ...



::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2022                    ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2022 09:35:18 :::
                                      2                          WP.3726-22.odt


                                  CORAM:     R. D. DHANUKA, AND
                                             S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

                                  RESERVED ON           :    30.03.2022
                                  PRONOUNCED ON         :    04.05.2022

     JUDGMENT : (Per S. G. Mehare, J.):-

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice for

respondents Nos.1 and 2.

2. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by the consent of

the parties heard finally.

3. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a Writ of Certiorari

to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 03.03.2022

passed by respondent No.2 Committee rejecting their tribe

validity claim and a Writ of Mandamus directing respondent

No.2 to issue tribe validity certificate of "Mannervarlu" -

Scheduled Tribe in their favour.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that on

13.05.2008, the father of petitioner No.1 was granted the

validity certificate. Their two uncles were also granted the

caste validity certificates in 2008-09. In 2003-04, two real

cousin uncles of the petitioners had also been granted the

validity certificates. At least 25 validity certificates were issued

3 WP.3726-22.odt

to the petitioners' families; still, respondent No.2 Committee

has invalidated the petitioners' claim.

5. Learned Counsel for petitioners has vehemently argued

that the powers to review have not been invested with the

Scrutiny Committee to review its own order. However, it has

undoubtedly, the powers to open the case only to the limited

issue if the fraud has been played by the claimant while

obtaining the caste/tribe validity. In the case at hand,

respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has applied a pick and

choose policy and referred only 14 validity certificates,

including one of Pravin Ramlu Totawar, who is not in close

relation with the family of the petitioners. The Committee has

willfully omitted a reference to more than ten persons in the

petitioners' families who have been granted validity

certificates. The petitioners replied to the vigilance report

extensively.

6. The petitioners are suffering in their respective career

and education opportunities due to the non-granting of the

validity certificates. Petitioner No.3 has been precluded from

participating in the admission process after her 12 th standard.

Petitioner No.2 has to pay the entire tuition fee for B.Ed.

Course. Petitioner No.1 could not participate in the selection

4 WP.3726-22.odt

process for the post of Surveyor though applied, owing to the

non-issuance of degree certificate of B. Tech. (Civil). Hence,

this petition.

7. To bolster the arguments, learned Counsel for the

petitioners placed reliance upon the decision of the

Honourable Apex Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs.

Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & ors., (2008) 9 Supreme Court

Cases 54 and the decisions rendered by this Court in Apoorva

Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny

Committee No.1, Sadar, Nagpur & Ors., 2010 (6) AIR BOM R

21 and in the case of Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar Vs. The

District Caste Certificate Verification Committee & Anr. in Writ

Petition No.8107 of 2019, dated 26.7.2021. He has vehemently

argued that the petitioners have a good case and the material

placed before the Scrutiny Committee is sufficient to issue

them validity certificates.

8. Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has

vehemently argued that the Committee failed in not

considering the validity certificate in the wake of as many as

25 validity certificates being granted to the family members by

the earlier Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has

unfoundedly made the accusations against the petitioners that

5 WP.3726-22.odt

the validity holders in the petitioners' family had furnished

false information while obtaining validity certificates without

substantiating the said accusations. There is absolutely no

discussion on playing fraud and suppressing the facts while

obtaining the certificates by the petitioners' relatives. The

findings of respondent No.2 are vague. It has not discussed

how the case of Sheshrao Mopale is applicable. The Committee

has not addressed the fraud committed by the validity holders

or how they suppressed the facts, fabricated the documents,

and misled the Scrutiny Committee.

9. It is submitted that the Committee should have given

due regard to the replies in response to the report of the

vigilance cell and ought to have verified from the record as to

the nature of so called fraud or misleading or fabrication etc.,

while refusing the benefit of the validity certificates issued to

their close relations. The reasons assigned by the Scrutiny

Committee are hypothetical and without any reasons. The

Scrutiny Committee has no case since the validity granted to

the close relatives has not been recalled till date. The blood

relatives are entitled to the validity certificate until the validity

certificate is in force. He also argued that the impugned order

6 WP.3726-22.odt

is without application of mind and illegal. The impugned order

is mechanical.

10. It is submitted that no powers to review are vested with

the Committee but certainly has the power to open the cases

only when forgery or fraud is suspected. No such fraud has

been proved in the procurement of certificates of the family

members of the petitioners. The Scrutiny Committee did not

consider that similarity in the surname does not prove the

relation. Out of 49 persons, 33 are not even petitioners' distant

or blood relatives. The report obtained about seven persons of

the revenue record are also not the blood relatives of the

petitioners. The impugned judgment is illegal and liable to be

set aside.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.P. Shri. Tambe would submit

that while granting the earlier certificates, the Committee did

not call for a vigilance inquiry report in 1998. The Courts have

granted the conditional orders. There is contra evidence.

Witness Hanumant, has stated that the record was

interpolated. The petitioners did not correct the entry in the

name of Laxmibai by following the procedure laid down in the

Secondary Schools Code. He has vehemently argued that the

word "lu" was conveniently added in many cases to take

7 WP.3726-22.odt

advantage of the reservation. Scrutiny Committee has correctly

appreciated the evidence and passed a legal and valid order.

He also relied on the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud Vs. The

State of Maharashtra & Ors of the Principal Seat at Bombay,

Writ Petition (St.) No.11536 of 2021, decided on 29.6.2021.

Learned AGP for the Scrutiny Committee has also argued that

the Vigilance Cell has made an investigation in detail and

discovered the contra entries. The evidence collected by the

Vigilance Cell proved that the blood relatives of the petitioners

had obtained the validity certificate suppressing the material

facts and on the basis of the evidence of the maternal relatives.

The fraud vitiates everything. Hence, they are not entitled to

claim on the basis of such a caste validity certificate.

12. So far as the question of review is concerned, the law is

settled that the power of review can be exercised only when

the statute provides for the same. In the absence of any such

provision in the concerned statute, the authority concerned

cannot exercise such power of review. However, where the

fraud is played with the court, the authority concerned has the

power to call back its orders.

13. It is not in dispute that various validity certificates were

issued to the blood relatives of the petitioners. The petitioners

8 WP.3726-22.odt

have specifically denied the relations with the persons of whom

the Vigilance Cell has collected the evidence or neither distant

relatives nor blood relatives. The Committee has not

commented a single word on the reply filed by the petitioners

to the vigilance report. The reply definitely has some

importance while determining the caste validity claim. The

Committee itself has observed in paragraph No.II, while

deciding issue No.1, that the large number of documents

belonging to the applicants and their fathers and uncles,

particularly the school record, shows the caste "Mannervarlu".

However, it has recorded the findings that those documents are

of the year between 1972 to 2020. No reasons have been

assigned by the Scrutiny Committee while recording the

finding that those entries have been entered in the school

register only to obtain the caste validity except the bare words.

The Scrutiny Committee did not assign any reason whether the

relations with whom the petitioners have denied the relations

is a correct statement.

14. So far as the interpolation of the caste in old record is

concerned, the Scrutiny Committee has not referred the matter

to the handwriting expert nor collected the evidence from the

concerned school to find out who has committed such

9 WP.3726-22.odt

interpolation. Therefore, the ratio of Sayanna Vs State of

Maharashtra and Others case (S.C.) would apply in the case at

hand. No doubt, a single fabricated entry may vitiate the whole

claim of the petitioners. As far as the fraud is concerned, it is

an act to fabricate the document or cheat the document that

resists the doubt about its genuineness. The Scrutiny

Committee has to verify the genuineness of the documents

placed on record, and if any interpolation is doubted, then the

Committee should call the expert opinion to confirm the doubt.

Barely observing that the relatives of the petitioners have

unauthorisedly interpolated or made the changes in the school

record is insufficient. Allegations of fraud are severe and

stigmatic. In bare words, the finding as to the fraud, if

recorded, shall be discarded.

15. The Scrutiny Committee also discussed the 7/12 extract

of the petitioners' families from the year 1954-55 as well as

1959-60. Noting the crops sown by the relatives, the

Committee has recorded a strange finding that in the year

1954-55, the "Mannevarlu" community was deprived of basic

amenities. However, looking at the entries in the above record,

the applicant and his family being advanced agriculturists,

have suppressed the information about their original caste.

10 WP.3726-22.odt

How there can be a relation between advanced agriculturists

and caste that too in an agricultural country like ours. The

reasonings shows perversity. Hence, we discard such findings.

Same way, the Scrutiny Committee has recorded the strange

finding that in the 7/12 extract, there are no entries as per

Section 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code as

the tribal occupier. Hence, it does not corroborate the

petitioners' claim.

16. The Scrutiny Committee has recorded the illegal findings

that though the school record of other persons collected is not

of the blood relatives of the petitioners, they belong to their

caste. In the absence of cogent evidence that those persons

belong to the petitioners' caste and have some relationship

with them, such a finding is inadmissible. It may be possible

that those who have written their caste different from

Mannervarlu caste do not mean that their mistake affects the

right of the claimants.

17. So far as the resemblance in the surname is concerned, it

is absolutely an illogical finding that those persons are either

belonging to or do not belong to the caste of petitioners.

Surname is undoubtedly not a criterion to determine the caste

of a person. It is experienced that the similar surnames are in

11 WP.3726-22.odt

different caste. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the

Scrutiny Committee has also recorded an erroneous finding

that the entry of the caste in the service books of petitioners'

father and uncle is recorded by suppressing their original caste.

In the absence of cogent and reliable evidence of fraud and

suppression of facts, an authority appreciating the evidence

can not abruptly record such serious findings. It is nothing but

a conjuncture and surmises.

18. So far as the area restriction is concerned, the law is

settled that it is not the ground to discard the caste claim.

19. In Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny

Committee No.1, Sadar, Nagpur and Others 2010(6) AIR BOM

R 21, the law is well settled that where a committee has given

finding about the validity of caste of candidate, another

committee ought not to refuse same status to blood relative

who applies and mere different view on the same facts would

not entitle the Committee dealing with subsequent caste claim

to reject it.

20. We have gone through the record with the abled

assistance of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as

the learned AGP. The claim of the petitioners was based upon

the earlier validity certificates granted by the competent

12 WP.3726-22.odt

Scrutiny Committee. We do not find the findings or material

before us that the Committee has rejected caste claim of any

blood relatives on the ground of obtaining it on fraud and

suppression of facts. The reasons assigned by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee are against the settled principles of law

and the principles of appreciating the evidence. We do not find

any reason to substantiate the impugned order.

21. For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the

following order :

ORDER

(a) The impugned order passed by respondent No.2 dated 03.03.2022 is quashed and set aside.

(b) Respondent No.2 is directed to issue "Mannervarlu"

tribe caste certificate to the petitioners within a week from the receipt of this order.

(c) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

(d) No orders as to costs.

(e) Record and proceeding be returned to the learned A.G.P.

       (S. G. MEHARE, J.)                        (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
                                        ...
     vmk/-