Bombay High Court
Tanishq Chetanand Darupalli ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 30 August, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
958 WRIT PETITION NO. 10652 OF 2023
TANISHQ CHETANAND DARUPALLI THROUGH FATHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN CHETANAND GOPALSWAMI DARUPALLI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute
AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.G. Sangale
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 30 AUGUST 2023
PER COURT ( PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J) :
Heard both the sides.
2. The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated
21.08.2023, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating her tribe
claim for 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe to his extent because another
claimant is not before us.
3. The petitioner is relying upon the validity certificate issued
to Dhirajkumar who is the paternal side relative.
4. Learned AGP supports impinged judgment and order.
According to him, the record of the relatives of the petitioner is totally
inconsistent with the claim of the petitioner. The caste claim of Kishor
Laxminarayan Darupalli was invalidated. The school record of
Narayanswami Munnaswami is found to be suspicious.
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2023 04:21:16 :::
2
5. Learned AGP would submit that the validity certificate of
Dhirajkumar is founded on contrary entries and false information. It was
rightly discarded by the Scrutiny Committee.
6. Learned AGP has placed on record the original record files
of validity holder Dhirajkumar and the petitioner. Learned AGP has
strenuously argued that the genealogy produced by the petitioner is
inconsistent with the genealogy secured during the vigilance enquiry.
There is contrary entry of Kalawati.
7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. It is
seen from the original papers that there was vigilance enquiry in the case
of the Rajkumar. The school record was verified including the contrary
entries. The Scrutiny Committee issued the validity certificate to
Dhirajkumar by speaking order. Unless the validity certificate of
Dhirajkumar is revoked, the petitioner cannot be denied the validity
certificate. The Scrutiny Committee has reopened matter of Dhirajkumar.
In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that petitioner is
entitled to conditional validity.
8. The validity certificate of Dhirajkumar was issued after
following due produce of law and it should enure to the benefits of the
petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee committed perversity in discarding
the same. We find impugned judgment and order is unsustainable. We,
therefore, passe the following order :
::: Uploaded on - 31/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/09/2023 04:21:16 :::
3
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set
aside to the extent of Tanishq S/o. Chetananand Darupalli.
iii. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity
certificate to Tanishq S/o. Chetananand Darupalli forthwith,
on condition that the validity certificate shall be subject to
the decision taken by the Committee in the matters which it
intends to reopen in respect of the validity holders.
iv. The certificate of validity shall be issued in the
prescribed format without incorporating other
conditions/additions.
v. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
spc/
