Bombay High Court
Avdhut Prabhu Jungulwad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 12 July, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
1 WP / 11793 / 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11793 OF 2022
Avdhut S/o Prabhu Jungulwad,
Age : 20 years, Occu : Student,
R/o. At Post Bolsa Bk., Tq. Umri,
Dist. Nanded Pin - 431 808. .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter, Aurangabad
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. C.R. Thorat
Addl. GP for the respondent - State : Mr. P.S. Patil
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 12 JULY 2023
ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. Learned Additional Government Pleader waives service.
3. At the joint request of the parties, the petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission.
2 WP / 11793 / 2022
4. By way of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the
judgment and order dated 04-11-2022 passed by the respondent no. 2
- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee invalidating his
claim as belonging to Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the
on 27-10-2016, the competent authority has issued the petitioner tribe
certificate as belonging to Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe but the same
has been invalidated by the impugned order passed by the respondent
no. 2.
6. He would further point out that cousin uncle of the
petitioner, namely, Gangadhar Digambar Jungulwad has been already
issued with the tribe validity certificate as belonging to Koli Mahadev
scheduled tribe by the scrutiny committee on 29-06-2011. He points
out that in case of Gangadhar, the scrutiny committee has verified the
record of father of Gangadhar i.e. Digambar Jungulwad and said
document is dated 19-06-1955.
7. He would also point out various entries in the school
extract of Digambar Moglaji Jungulwad, who is the cousin grandfather
of the petitioner, cousin uncle of the petitioner, namely, Sainath
Digambar Jungulwad mentioning the tribe as Koli Mahadev scheduled
tribe.
3 WP / 11793 / 2022
8. Both the sides have taken us through the entire record in
the present petition. They attempted to demonstrate as to how the
evidence before the scrutiny committee was sufficient to substantiate
the claim of the petitioner or otherwise.
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the papers.
10. We are of the considered view that since the petitioner has
been relying upon the validities of the blood relations from the paternal
side which are still in existence and have not been revoked or
cancelled and when there is absolutely no dispute about the blood
relation between these validity holders and the petitioner, we are bound
by the observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326. It has been
specifically observed therein that the committee is entitled to
demonstrate that the validities being relied upon by the claimants were
not obtained in accordance with the decision in the matter of Ku.
Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Thane and others; (1997) 5 SCC 437 or the rules, the
scrutiny committee is entitled to undertake a fresh scrutiny by issuing
notices to the validity holders. However, if there is no dispute about the
claimant being a blood relative from the paternal side of the validity
holder, such validity should benefit the claimant.
4 WP / 11793 / 2022
11. This Court has been consistently granting validities making
it subject to the condition and with a rider that such validity certificates
would be subject to the outcome of the cases being re-opened by the
committees.
12. Admittedly there are number of validity holders whose
certificates are still to be revoked and cancelled. The petitioner being
the blood relation from the paternal side cannot be refused the validity
certificate.
13. We allow the writ petition partly.
14. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
15. The respondent no. 2 - scrutiny committee shall
immediately issue the validity certificate to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within two weeks. However,
such certificate would be subject to the outcome of the matter/s being
re-opened by the scrutiny committee and that the petitioner shall not
claim equities. Rule is made absolute.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
