Sukhada Sudarshan Honwadajkar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6956 Bom

                                        1                        1039.WP-8251-2023.doc



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         Writ Petition No. 8251 / 2023

Sukhada d/o Sudarshan Honwdajkar,
Age 19 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli
Dist. Nanded.                                                         ...Petitioner
                                            Versus
1.        The State of Maharashtra,
          Through its Secretary,
          Tribal Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.        The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
          Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
          Through its Dy. Director (R),
          Aurangabad.                                                ...Respondents

                                            ___
                     Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner
                     Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent/State
                                      ___
                                  CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                             SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
                                    DATE : 13 JULY, 2023.

FINAL ORDER [PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] :

.         Heard both the sides for final disposal.

1.        The     petitioner       is   challenging   judgment      and      order      dated




    ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2023                        ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2023 07:09:19 :::
                                 2                    1039.WP-8251-2023.doc



04/07/2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee,
invalidating her caste claim for scheduled tribe 'Koli Mahadev'. The
learned Advocate submits that despite having validity certificates of
blood relatives, the claim was rejected, is a perversity. Chandraprakash
is contended to be first validity holder.    The vigilance report in his
matter is placed on record.         The contrary entries and all other
circumstances were taken into account, while issuing validity
certificates to father-Sudharshan, Uncle-Gangadhar, cousin-Shankar and
Chandraprakash.


2.     Per-contra the learned AGP submits that the Scrutiny Committee
rightly rejected the claim holding that there were contrary entries and
manipulation of school record was noticed in respect of Raghunath,
Laxmikant and Gangadhar. The Scrutiny Committee correctly recorded
findings that the validity certificates were obtained by suppressing
material facts and without following due procedure of law.


3.     The learned AGP submits that the affinity test was against the
petitioner. He points out from the file produced for our perusal that
there is glaring manipulation of the record in case of Laxmikant,
Gangadhar and Sudarshan. He submits that it is a case of brazen fraud,
which needs to be taken seriously.


4.     The petitioner has produced on record validity certificates of




 ::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2023               ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2023 07:09:19 :::
                                    3                       1039.WP-8251-2023.doc



Chandraprakash, Sudarshan, Gangadhar, Shankar. At page no.21, there
is    report     of    vigilance   enquiry   conducted      in    the     matter       of
Chandraprakash.           After due procedure of law, Chandraprakash was
issued with the validity certificate.          The validity holders are close
relatives of the petitioner from the paternal side. There is no dispute
about genealogy at page no.29. In view of this cogent material on
record, we find that the petitioner is entitled to the validity certificate.


5.     The learned AGP has tried to point out the manipulation from the
original record. At this juncture, it is not appropriate for us to comment
upon the allegations. The Scrutiny Committee has already decided to
reopen matters of validity holders.


6.     We are guided by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case
of Maharashtra Adavasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshak Samiti vs. State of
Maharashtra & others reported in 2023(2) Mh.L.J.785 and in the case
of Apoorva Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste CertificateScrutiny Committee
and Others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401.


7.     The impugned judgment and order is arbitrary and unsustainable.
We therefore pass the following order.

                                       ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

4 1039.WP-8251-2023.doc

(ii) The judgment and order dated 04/07/2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny Committee, is quashed and set aside.

(iii) The Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner for 'Koli Mahadev' within a period of two weeks on following conditions ;

[a] the validity certificate shall be subject to the outcome of the revocation/cancellation proceedings of validity certificates of the close relatives of the petitioner as proposed by the Scrutiny Committee.

[b] the petitioner shall not claim any equity.

[c] the petitioner shall cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee.

(iv) In view of above terms, the writ petition is disposed of.

[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

NAJEEB/..