Bombay High Court
Sneha Hanmanlu Muttepod vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 21 August, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
2023:BHC-AUG:18020-DB
1 39 & 42.WP-10301 & 10309-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 10301 / 2023
Sneha d/o Hanmanlu Muttepod ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary to
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter Aurangabad,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents
AND
Writ Petition No. 10309 / 2023
Ganesh s/o Hanmanlu Muttepod ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary to
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter Aurangabad,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand,
Dist. Aurangabad. ...Respondents
___
Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions.
Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, AGP for respondents/State in both petitions.
___
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2023 00:57:17 :::
2 39 & 42.WP-10301 & 10309-2023.doc
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 21 AUGUST 2023.
FINAL ORDER [PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] :
. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties finally.
1. The petitioners in both the petitions are the siblings and
children of Hanmanlu Girmaji Muttepod. Their tribe certificates for
scheduled tribe Mannervarlu, were invalidated and confiscated by a
common judgment and order dated 10.08.2023. Being aggrieved, the
petitions are filed. They are relying upon validity issued to
Parshuram Chinappa Muttepod and further relying upon old entries
of 1955.
2. The learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and order.
According to him, the Scrutiny Committee noticed the contrary
entries of the blood relatives of the petitioners and there was
suppression of invalidation order passed in the matter of Manohar.
Therefore no fault can be found in the impugned judgment and order.
Considering the affinity test and unreliability of the validity
certificate, the caste claims are rightly rejected.
3. The learned AGP has also informed that the Committee has
proposed re-verification and show cause notices are issued. The
original files of petitioners and validity holder, Parshuram are
produced on record.
4. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. The
genealogy which is at page no.87 and 89 is undisputed. The father of
the petitioners is the validity holder. However, Parshuram who is
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2023 00:57:17 :::
3 39 & 42.WP-10301 & 10309-2023.doc
paternal side relative of the petitioners, is the first validity holder. To
demonstrate that his validity certificate was issued after following
due procedure of law and endeavour is made by the petitioners by
producing vigilance report and the order passed in his matter by the
Scrutiny Committee. The reasoned order in the case of Parshuram
which is at page no.76 reveals an enquiry conducted by vigilance
officer. The report is at page no.80. The relevant record appears to
be considered by the then Committee. The reasoned order passed by
the Committee in the matter of father of the petitioners is also on
record at page no.96. It also shows consideration of relevant record.
We are of the considered view that the validity certificaets of
Parshuram and Hanmanlu are reliable.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that there
is old record of 1955 for transfer of land. It was considered in the
case of validity holders. The petitioners have explained before the
Scrutiny Committee on 11.08.2023 that the original document was
not available and they were unable to produce the same. Therefore a
finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the document be
not considered. As the document in question was already considered
in the matters of earlier validity holders, it would be hyper technical
approach to deprive the petitioners from its benefit.
6. The learned AGP would point out from the birth extracts of
Chinappa and the document of the 1955, that the validity validity
certificate was wrongly issued to Parshuram. It is further submitted
that the invalidation order in the matter of Manohar was suppressed.
There are contrary entries and the genealogy is doubtful.
::: Uploaded on - 23/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/08/2023 00:57:17 :::
4 39 & 42.WP-10301 & 10309-2023.doc
7. The Scrutiny Committee has already decided to reopen the
matters, hence birth certificate of Chinappa and its probative value
cannot be commented at this juncture. The doubt expressed by the
learned AGP about the genealogy can be subject matter of re-
verification. The photocopies of school record showing contrary
entries are pointed out from the original file. We restrain ourselves
from offering any comment as that would cause prejudice to the re-
verification. The Scrutiny Committee has committed error of
jurisdiction when already validity certificates are issued on selfsame
record.
8. We find that the impugned judgment and order is unsustainable
and therefore, we allow the writ petitions partly by passing following
order.
ORDER
(i) The common judgment and order dated 10.08.2023 passed by
the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificates of
scheduled tribe 'Mannervarlu' in favour of both the petitioners
immediately which shall be subject to following conditions:
(a) The validity certificates shall be subject to the outcome of
the re-verification undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee.
(b) The petitioners shall not claim any equity.
[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
NAJEEB/..
