Bombay High Court
Aishwarya Venkatesh Rautwar vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 8 August, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
2023:BHC-AUG:16894-DB
1 wp 8901.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8901 OF 2023
Aishwarya Venkatesh Rautwar .. Petitioner
Versus
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee Kinwat and another .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri C. A. Jadhav, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 08 AUGUST 2023.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both the sides.
2. It is an exceptional matter where we are now compelled to
pass a similar order for the similar reasons which had weighted
with this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 1993 of 2022 in
the petitioner's matter itself. After noting that the petitioner
was relying upon the validity of one Ganpat Pandharinath, it
was found in the file of Ganpat and others that petitioner's father
was not shown in the genealogy. The matter was remanded to
the Committee for taking decision afresh granting liberty to the
petitioner to prove the relationship with the validity holders.
2 wp 8901.23
3. It appears that after remand a fresh scrutiny was
undertaken. A statement purportedly recorded by the vigilance
officer of Ganpat Pandharinath Rautwar was recorded on 01
November 2021. Going by that statement, Ganpat purportedly
admitted petitioner's father to be his brother. Even genealogy
was prepared under his signature. If such was a state of affair,
irrespective of anything else, it was expected of the Committee to
have objectively scrutinized veracity or otherwise of the
statement being made by Ganpat Pandharinath Rautwar and
the genealogy furnished by him.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader tries to
demonstrate as to how there is doubt about the identity of the
individual who had given this statement. He tries to point out
the difference in the signatures appearing on the statement and
the genealogy and the statement of Ganpatrao Pandharinath
Rautwar purportedly on an affidavit filed in the matter of
petitioner's father Venkateshm and another affidavit filed in the
same matter dated 02 February 2010 purportedly signed by the
same Ganpatrao Pandharinath Rautwar mentioning therein that
in his own matter he had not disclosed Venkateshm as his
brother because of family feud.
5. If such is the state of affairs, it was imperative for the
Committee to have objectively scrutinized such material
particularly in the light of the latest statement collected during
vigilance, of Ganpat Pandharinath Rautwar dated 01 November
3 wp 8901.23
2021 and the genealogy furnished by him. We fail to understand
as to why the Committee has completely overlooked this
statement. We are therefore of the considered view that the
matter needs to be relegated to the Committee for taking a
decision afresh in the light of the above observations and
particularly statement of Ganpat Pandharinath Rautwar dated
01 November 2021.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that
as the matter is being now remanded back, she be given an
opportunity to substantiate the claim by leading additional
evidence.
7. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and order is quashed and set aside. Matter is
remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh in
the light of the above observations and by extending an
opportunity to the petitioner to lead additional evidence. The
petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 14.08.2023 and
the Committee shall thereafter decide the matter as
expeditiously as possible and in any case by 31 August 2023.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 23
