Seeta Gyanoba Bachewad Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6816 Bom

                                 1                                wp 3904.22

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 3904 OF 2022

          Seeta D/o Gyanoba Bachewad,
          Age : 24 years, Occu - Education
          R/o Rittha Tq. Bhokar,
          Dist. Nanded,
          Through Power of Attorney Holder,
          Amol S/o Gyanoba Bachewad
          Age 28 Years, Occu. : Education,
          R/o As above.                               ..   Petitioner

                   Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its secretary,
          Medical Education and Drugs Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

 2.       The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
          Verification Committee Kinwat,
          Through its Dy. Director ®,,
          At Aurangabad.

 3.       The Dean
          Rajarshi Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj
          Government Medical College Kolhapur,
          Dist. Kolhapur.

 4.       The Registrar,
          Maharashtra University of Health
          Sciences, Dindori Road, Mhasrul/
          Nashik, District - Nashik.                  ..   Respondents

 Shri S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Shri A. A. Jagatkar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Mrs. Vaishali S. Chudhari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.




::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2023                 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 07:33:00 :::
                                      2                             wp 3904.22

                           CORAM :    MANGESH S. PATIL AND
                                      SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
                               DATE : 11 JULY 2023.

 FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :


 .        Heard learned counsel for parties for final disposal of the
 petition.


 2.       The petitioner is assailing judgment and order dated
 23.02.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee
 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to
 'Mannervarlu' (Scheduled Tribe).


 3.       The petitioner relies upon various documents besides the
 validity certificate issued in favour of her paternal cousin Sunita
 and validity certificate of Sanjivkumar.


 4.       The Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim of the
 petitioner because the school record of the blood relatives of the
 petitioner was inconsistent. There were contrary entries. The
 affinity test was against the petitioner. The validity certificates
 of Sunita, Sanjivkumar, Shashank, Pralhad and Ravikumar
 were discarded.


 5.       The learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
 Nos. 1 to 3 supports the impugned judgment and order.                        He
 further submits that validity certificates were procured by
 suppressing material facts. The Scrutiny Committee has decided




::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2023                  ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2023 07:33:00 :::
                                  3                                    wp 3904.22

 to reopen the validity certificates relied upon by the petitioner of
 the blood relatives.


 6.       The validity certificate issued in favour of Sunita can be
 accepted. The relationship is not disputed. The genealogy is
 placed on record at page No. 16 of the petition. We do not find
 any material to take contrary view and deprive the petitioner
 from the tribe benefit.       We are fortified in our view by the
 judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of
 Maharashtra Adavasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshak Samiti Vs.

 State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J.
 785.


 7.       The Scrutiny Committee discriminated the petitioner in
 rejecting her tribe claim. The impugned judgment and order is
 unsustainable in the eye of law. We are of the considered view
 that the petitioner is entitled to receive validity certificate
 conditionally.


 8.       We therefore pass following order.


                                 ORDER

A. The writ petition is partly allowed.

B. The judgment and order dated 23.02.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

 C.       The respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue





                                  4                                wp 3904.22

validity certificate of 'Mannervarlu' (Scheduled Tribe) to the petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from today.

D. The validity certificate issued to the petitioner shall be subject to the decision of the Committee in case of revocation or cancellation of certificates of validity holders, relied by the petitioner.

E. The petitioner shall not claim any equity in case the validity certificates of the blood relatives are revoked or cancelled.

F. The writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] bsb/July 23