Rushikesh Tukaram Salunke vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7256 Bom

2023:BHC-AUG:15357-DB
                                                                                       1063.WP.4891.19.odt


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                          WRIT PETITION NO.4891 OF 2019

                  Rushikesh s/o Tukaram Salunke                    ...    PETITIONER
                         VERSUS
             1.   The State of Maharashtra,
                  through its Secretary,
                  Tribal Development Department
                  Mantralaya Mumbai -32
             2.   The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
                  Committee Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
                  through its Member Secretary
             3.   The Deputy Collector/ S.D.O. Ambajogai,
                  Tq Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.
             4.   Mahatma Basweshwar Education Society's
                  College of Engineering, Ambajogai,
                  Tq Ambajogai, Dist. Beed
                  through its Principal
             5.   Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathawada
                  University, Aurangabad-431 004
                  through its Registrar                       ...    RESPONDENTS
                                             ...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar AGP for respondents/State : Mr. S.G. Sangle Advocate for respondent No.5 : Mr. A.P. Nikam ...

                                          CORAM       : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                         SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.J.


                                                 DATE    :   20.07.2023
             PER COURT :
                              Heard both the sides.

2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent scrutiny committee dated 30.06.2018 whereby his claim under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 as belong to "Thakur" scheduled tribe has been turned down.

3. We are not required to go through the entire order under

1063.WP.4891.19.odt

challenge and to reach any independent conclusion for the simple reason that the impugned order was a common order passed in the matters of the present petitioner and his real sister Rutuja. Obviously the evidence was same and the proposals were considered simultaneously and disposed of by a common judgment.

4. In writ petition No.7624/2018 Rutuja subjected the selfsame order to a challenge. By the order dated 30.07.2018, for the reasons mentioned therein, the petition was allowed to the extent of directing the respondent scrutiny committee to issue a tribe validity certificate which was subject to the decision that was to be taken in the matter of the validity holders which the committee had decided to reopen. When this Court has already embarked upon and examined the sustainability of selfsame order in the matter of Rutuja, we cannot take a different view by resorting to a fresh inquiry.

5. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside even to the extent of petitioner Rushikesh. The respondent - scrutiny committee shall now issue tribe validity certificate to him as "Thakur" scheduled tribe immediately. It shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the committee in the reopened validities. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities. The petitioner and other validity holders shall cooperative the committee in early decision of the reopen validities.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

habeeb