Bombay High Court
Dheeraj S/O Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra , Dept. Of ... on 4 December, 2023
Author: A.S.Chandurkar
Bench: A.S.Chandurkar
2023:BHC-AS:38024-DB
19--wp-3463-2023group.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3463 OF 2023
Shrikant s/o. Mahadeo Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3450 OF 2023
Sanjay s/o. Suryakant Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3451 OF 2023
Mangesh s/o. Arun Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3454 OF 2023
Arun s/o. Chandrakant Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3458 OF 2023
Raj s/o. Madhusudan Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3459 OF 2023
Dheeraj s/o. Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 21:07:10 :::
19--wp-3463-2023group.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3461 OF 2023
Dililp s/o. Vasant Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3452 OF 2023
Komal d/o. Dilip Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Another .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3457 OF 2023
Sneha d/o. Sanjay Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3456 OF 2023
Pooja d/o. Madhusudan Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3462 OF 2023
Rutuja d/o. Madhusudan Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3460 OF 2023
Dnyaneshwar s/o. Mahadeo Gaikwad .. Petitioner.
v/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.
Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, for the Petitioner in all the Petitions.
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 16/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 28/02/2024 21:07:10 :::
19--wp-3463-2023group.doc
Mr. K. S. Thorat, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition Nos. 3463 of
2023 to 3452 of 2023.
Mr. S. L. Babar, AGP for Respondent-State in Writ Petition Nos.3457 of
2023 to 3460 of 2023.
Mr. Abhijit Devkhile, for Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.3463 of
2023.
Ms. Meena H. Doshi, for Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.3458 of
2023.
Ms. Pooja Joshi, for Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition Nos.3462 of 2023
and 3456 of 2023.
CORAM: A.S.CHANDURKAR &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE : 4th DECEMBER, 2023.
P.C:-
RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
2 The challenge raised in all these Petitions is to the order
dated 2nd March, 2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Pune cancelling
the validity certificate issued to each Petitioner. The said order has been
passed pursuant to a show cause notice issued by the Scrutiny Committee,
calling upon each Petitioner to explain as to why proceedings resulting in
issuance of the Validity Certificate should not be re-opened on the ground
that there has been suppression of facts and mis-representation while
obtaining such Validity Certificates. The show cause notice was based on
the Vigilance Cell Report that was received in the matter of one Prasad
Suahs Gaikwad, the paternal cousin of the Petitioners.
3 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that after
passing of the impugned order dated 2 nd March, 2023, by the Scrutiny
Committee, this Court in Writ Petition No. 13566 of 2022 (Prasad s/o.
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 5
19--wp-3463-2023group.doc
Suhas Gaikwad v/s. The State of Maharashtra) dated 30 th March, 2023
has considered the case of the Prasad S. Gaikwad and has directed the
Scrutiny Committee to issue Validity Certificate to the Petitioners therein
after setting aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. On this
basis, it is submitted that the show cause notice as well as the impugned
order do not survive and the same deserve to be dropped/ dismissed.
4 The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
Scrutiny Committee opposed aforesaid submissions. According to him, the
Scrutiny Committee has considered the documents of each Petitioner and
it has thereafter invalidated their claim after cancelling the validity
certificate issued to them. Since the impugned order has been passed after
giving due notice, no interference was called for.
5 The learned Counsel appearing for the employer of the
respective Petitioners submits that in view of the interim orders passed,
the said Petitioners continue in service.
6 We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we
have perused the documents on record. Perusal of the show cause notice
dated 23rd February, 2022 as well as the impugned order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee dated 2nd March, 2023 indicates that the Scrutiny
Committee has sought to review its order by referring to certain old
entries that were not noticed earlier while granting the validity certificates
to the Petitioners. It is however necessary to note that these very
documents were the subject matter of consideration in the case of the
Petitioner's blood relative, Ms. Snehal Dilip Gaikwad in W. P. No.8152 of
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 5
19--wp-3463-2023group.doc
2019. On the basis of the judgment delivered in that case, another blood
relative Prasad Suhas Gaikwad was also granted validity certificate in W. P.
No.13566 of 2022 decided on 30th March, 2023. We, therefore, find that
in view of this adjudication wherein the same material that was
considered while granting validity to the Petitioners has been re-visited,
there would be no reason to re-call the validity certificates issued to the
Petitioners.
7 For the aforesaid reasons, the common order dated 2nd March,
2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside in the light of the
judgment of this Court in the case of Prasad Suhas Gaikwad, dated 30 th
March, 2023. The respective employers should take note of this
adjudication and take necessary consequential steps.
8 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 5 of 5
