Bombay High Court
Pallavi Sanjay Padalwar And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 11 July, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
WP2847.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2847 OF 2022
1. Pallavi D/o. Sanjay Padalwar
Age. 25 years, Occu. Education
R/o. Eklara, Tq. Mukhed,
District. Nanded
2. Nilesh S/o. Sanjay Padalwar
Age. 22 years, Occu. Education
R/o. Eklara, Tq. Mukhed,
District. Nanded ....Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education and Drugs Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee Kinwat,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
at Aurangabad.
3. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee Kinwat,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
at Aurangabad. ....Respondents
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.M. Vibhute
AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.K. Tambe
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 11 JULY 2023
1/6
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 06:52:39 :::
WP2847.2022
JUDGMENT ( PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of
the parties.
2. The petitioners assail the judgment and order dated 26
November 2021, passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating their
claims for 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe. The petitioners have relied
upon the validity certificate of their father Sanjay Venkatrao Padalwar,
validity certificates of close relatives, affidavits, extracts of the school
record and reply to the vigilance report.
3. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claims
because the School record of the blood relatives of the petitioners was
incompatible with their claim. The contrary entries of the blood
relatives were noticed during the vigilance enquiry. The place of
residence of the petitioners and their ancestors were not compatible.
There was manipulation of the record.
4. It was further recorded that the validity certificates of the
blood relatives were procured by misrepresentation and suppression of
material facts. The genealogy disclosed for procuring validity was
WP2847.2022
false. The close relative of the petitioners, Chandrakant was denied
validity which was confirmed by High Court. The Committee has
proposed to open the validity certificates of the relatives of the
petitioners.
5. Learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and order.
He submits that tribe certificate of Chandrakant was invalidated by the
Scrutiny Committee and it was confirmed in WP No. 2653 of 2006. In
the said judgment the relevant material and validity certificates of
other relatives were considered. In the wake of said judgment, the
Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the tribe claim.
6. Having considered rival submissions of the parties, we
notice that the genealogy is produced on record at pg. no. 33 is not in
dispute. It is transpired that there are in all seven validity holders to
support the petitioners. Their father Sanjay Venkatrao Padalwar was
issued with the validity certificate in pursuance of the order passed by
High Court in the Writ Petition No. 1943 of 1994. There was vigilance
enquiry in case of their father. Their father had replied the report which
is on pg. no. 56 and 58. It appears that father was issued with the
validity certificate after following due procedure of law. The learned
WP2847.2022
AGP does not point out any glaring material or the circumstance to
take contrary view and to discard validity of the father.
7. We are bound by the ratio laid down in paragraph nos. 22
to 24 of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Versus State of Maharashtra and
Others, 2023 SCC Online SC 326. The petitioners are entitled to
validity certificates on parity.
8. The submission of learned AGP is that the tribe certificate
of Chandrakant was invalidated and the said order was confirmed by
the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 2006, and therefore, that is
an impediment for the petitioners in claiming the caste status, cannot
be countenanced. The decision of invalidation of a claim of a close
relative may not operate as res judicata or estoppel in considering the
claim of the incumbents in future. The enquiry is subjective in nature
and dependents upon the material produced on record. However, the
possibility of rejecting the claim because there was previous
invalidation of caste claim of the relative cannot be altogether ruled
out. But the respondents have not made out such a case.
WP2847.2022
9. Interestingly, we notice that in the order passed by the
High Court in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 2006, the validity certificate
of father of the petitioners Sanjay Venkatrao Padalwar was considered.
In that view of the matter, the reference to the decision of the High
Court in the matter of Chandrakant may not be helpful to the
respondents.
10. We find that Scrutiny Committee arrived at perverse and
patently illegal conclusions. There is a need of interference in the
impugned judgment and order. However, we are of the considered
view that the petitioners can have the conditional validity.
11. On facts and circumstances stated above the Writ Petition
is partly allowed in following terms :
i. The judgment and order dated 26
November 2021, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, is
quash and set aside.
ii. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue the
caste validity certificate to the petitioners for
'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe on condition as follows :
a. the validity certificate shall be subject to the
WP2847.2022
revocation of cancellation of the validity certificates of
the blood relatives of the petitioners as proposed by the
Scrutiny Committee.
b. the petitioners shall not claim any equity.
c. the petitioners shall cooperate with the Scrutiny
Committee for any enquiry.
12. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
spc/-
