Bombay High Court
Mayuri Hanmant Karewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 29 November, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:24977-DB
1 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1999 OF 2018
AND CA/864/2023 IN WP/1999/2018
Ku. Mayuri D/o Hanmant Karewad .. 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
3] The Maharashtra University of Health
Sciences, Nasik, through its Registrar
4] H.B.T. Medical College and
Dr. R.N. Kuper Municipal General
Hospital, Bhakti - Vedant Ville - Parle,
Mumbai through its Dean .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8335 OF 2021
Mamta D/o Hanmant Karewad .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Medical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad
Through its Member Secretary,
Aurangabad .. Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 30/11/2023 09:26:33 :::
2 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 8318 OF 2021
Swapnil S/o Laxmanrao Karewad .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Medical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad
Through its Member Secretary,
Aurangabad
3] The Commissioner & Competent Authority,
Commissionerate of Common Entrance Test Cell,
Government of Maharashtra,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A.K. Naik Marg, Fort,
Mumbai - 32. .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. S.R. Barlinge (WP/1999/2018)
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. O.B. Boinwad (WP/8318/2021 and 8335/2021)
APP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.G. Sangale
Advocate for the respondent no. 3 : Mr. S.D. Joshi (WP/1999/2018)
Advocate for respondent no. 4 : Mr. A.K. Tiwari (WP/1999/2018)
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 02 NOVEMBER 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 29 NOVEMBER 2023
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith in all the
petitions. Learned AGP waives service. At the joint request of the
parties, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.
3 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
2. By way of these separate writ petitions, the petitioners are
challenging the two separate orders passed by the respondent -
scrutiny committee confiscating and cancelling their Koli Mahadev
scheduled tribe certificates.
3. Mayuri's claim was rejected by the order dated 05-12-2017
whereas the separate claims of her real sister - Mamta and their cousin
Swapnil Laxman Karewad was decided by common judgment and
order dated 28-11-2020. Since the committee in the impugned order
has not denied the relationship inter se between these petitioners and
since they all have been relying upon certificate of validity issued to
Swapnil's real brother Tukaram Laxman Karewad and also relying upon
the similar set of evidence, though discussed in the two different
orders, we propose to dispose of these writ petitions by the common
order to avoid rigmarole.
4. The learned advocate Mr. Barlinge for the petitioners and
Mr. Boinwad would submit that the impugned orders are clearly
perverse and arbitrary. There was no sufficient and cogent reason for
the committee to discard the valuable evidence in the form of certificate
of validity issued to Tukaram which was issued by following due
process of law and after conducting vigilance enquiry. A pre-
constitutional school record of Gynoba Kondiba Karewad who was the
4 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
grandfather of Mayuri and Mamta and cousin grandfather of Swapnil of
28-07-1947 has been disregarded on the ground that there was a
manipulation in the original entry which was Koli but was converted as
Koli Mahadev. Similarly, the committee has merely relied upon
contrary entry of Gangaram Gynoba Karewad who is the real uncle of
Mayuri and Mamta of the year 1953 and has ignored number of
favourable entries. The approach of the committee is incorrect. The
claims ought not to have been rejected simply by referring to this
isolated and stray contrary entry.
5. Mr. Barlinge and Mr. Boinwad would further submit that
contrary to the well settled principles, the committee has resorted to
affinity test and area restriction which cannot be sustained in the light of
the decision in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims and others; (2012) 1 SCC 113 and
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326.
6. Per contra, the learned AGP would oppose the petitions by
pointing out that some of the petitioners' family members in all
probability and for the obvious reasons, have resorted to forgery
wherein the original entry in the school record of grandfather Gynoba
Kondiba Karewad of 1947 was found to be manipulated as Koli
Mahadev, as word 'Mahadev' was added subsequently, in a different
5 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
handwriting and ink. For this reason alone, the petitioners cannot be
allowed to put up a claim for social status.
7. The learned AGP would further submit that Tukaram was
granted certificate of validity by a committee chaired by one Mr. V.S.
Patil whose functioning was found by the Government to be dubious
and the Government has decided to verify all the validities issued by
that committee. He would submit that Tukaram was granted certificate
of validity relying upon validities of individuals who were not related to
him by blood from the paternal side. It was noticed by the committee
that he had obtained certificate of validity by concealing contrary
entries while denying its benefit to be extended to the petitioners. The
committee has decided to undertake a review of the validity granted to
him.
8. The learned AGP would submit that the fact that Mayuri's
claim was invalidated by the committee in the year 2017 was
concealed by petitioners - Mayuri and Swapnil while submitting the
proposal and affidavit in form 'F'. They ought to have disclosed this
fact and the petitions be dismissed.
9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the papers including the the original files of the committee.
6 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
10. At the outset, it needs to be emphasized that the
committee which has considered the claim of Mayuri in the year 2017
and in respect of sister - Mamta and Swapnil in the year 2020, without
entertaining any doubt about they being related to each other by blood.
Claims of Mamta and Swapnil have been decided by common order, by
particularly observing in the impugned order passed in their matters
that since both of them are from the same family the committee
decided to consider their proposals simultaneously.
11. The committee has in the impugned order passed in the
matters of Mamta and Swapnil entertained some doubt about the
genealogy, observed that the genealogy prepared in the matter of
Mayuri on the basis of vigilance conducted therein starts with one
Maneji Karewad as the common ancestor, whereas the genealogy
prepared in the matter of Mamta and Swapnil shows one Ramji to be
the common ancestor. Things can be clear if one compares these two
genealogies. The genealogy prepared in the matter of Mayuri is as
under :-
Maneji Karewad
Ramji Karewad
Kondiba Karewad Govind Karewad
Tukaram Gyanoba Motiram Gangadhar Laxman Lingu
Gangaram Madhav Hanumant
Jyoti Swati Vinayak Santosh Manisha Komal Hrishikesh Mayuri Mamta Mahesh
7 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
12. The genealogy prepared in the matter of Mamta and
Swapnil is as under :-
Ramji Karewad
Kondiba
Tukaram Gyanoba Motiram
Laxman Gangaram Madhav Hanumant
Vinayak Santosh Manisha Hrishikesh Komal Mayuri Mamta Mahesh
Tukaram Vikas Swapnil Ramrao Nagorao Suryakant
13. As can be noticed by comparison of the two genealogies,
apparently there is no inconsistency. The first genealogy starts from
the common ancestor Maneji showing his son Ramji who in turn had
two sons Kondiba and Govind. Kondiba is the common ancestor of
these petitioners, whereas the second genealogy starts from the
common ancestor Ramji and his son Kondiba. The second genealogy
does not indicate branch of Kondiba - brother of Govind. If all these
petitioners are claiming to be the successors of Kondiba, merely
because the first genealogy prepared in the matter of Mayuri shows the
common ancestor Maneji and then proceeds to demonstrate the
existence of second son of Ramji by name Govind, it cannot be said
that these genealogies are incompatible. In all probability, this could
be the reason for the committee to decide the claims of Swapnil and
Mamta simultaneously by a common order by observing that they are
from the same family.
8 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
14. However, the things do not seem to be as simple. The
validity holder - Tukaram has filed affidavit in Mayuri's petition andhas
furnished the genealogy substantiating the afore-mentioned second
genealoty and claims these girls to be his cousins but then,
interestingly, the original file in his own claim which was made available
to us apparently shows that during the vigilance enquiry, statement of
his father Laxman Tukaram Karewad was recorded by the vigilance
officer. A genealogy was prepared under his signature showing a
common ancestor Kondiba to be survived by son Tukaram who was his
father and more importantly in the statement he expressly mentioned
that his father Tukaram Kondiba Karewad was literate but dead and
had no brother or sisters and was the only child. No attempt has been
made by the petitioners to take exception to this statement of Laxman
Tukaram Karewad but his petitioner - Swapnil and validity holder -
Tukaram's father. Nothing was demonstrated even before us as to why
this statement is factually incorrect and should not be given any
weightage. If this is so, irrespective of the fact that the committe in the
order passed in the matter of Mamta and Swapnil has overlooked this
important piece of evidence in the form of statement of Laxman
Tukaram Karewad recorded during the vigilance enquiry conducted in
the matter of validity holder - Tukaram, in our considered view, since it
is a claim for social status, this piece of evidence is decisive to discard
9 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
the claim of these two sisters Mayuri and Mamta who claim to be the
grandchildren of Tukaram Laxman Karewad who was the grandfather
of petitioner - Swapnil and validity holder - Tukaram. This clearly
demonstrates that even the validity holder - Tukaram has been bold
enough to file an affidavit supporting the claims of these two girls and
providing a genealogy showing that their grandfather Tukaram Kondiba
Karewad was having brother Gynoba and Motiram which stand is
inconsistent with the statement of his own father Laxman Tukaram as
mentioned hereinabove.
15. Interestingly, this seems to be the reason why petitioner -
Mayuri whose claim was decided in the year 2017 had not relied upon
the validity of Tukaram which was obtained in the year 2011. One
cannot comprehend any reason and even no attempt has been made
before us to explain as to why the validity possessed by Tukaram was
not relied upon her if he was related to her by blood from paternal side.
16. Obviously, there is no dispute about petitioner - Swapnil
being the real brother of validity holder - Tukaram. Since the
committee had issued certificate of validity to him by conducting
necessary vigilance enquiry, Swapnil would be entitled to derive its
beneift as laid down in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra).
10 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
17. Interestingly, though the order in the matter of Tukaram
reads that he could not stand to the affinity test, having failed to furnish
information on the traits and characteristics of the community Koli
Mahadev, the vigilance report in his matter, in fact, was otherwise. The
Research Officer observed in column no.30 to replies given by
Tukaram's father during the vigilance enquiry in respect of traits and
characteristics were compatible with the traits of Koli Mahadev
scheduled tribe, meaning thereby that though in the order passed in
the matter of Tukaram, the committee had noted that he could not go
through the affinity test in fact the vigilance report was otherwise
favouring him.
18. True it is that Tukaram had relied upon the validity of one
Sanjay Nagorao Sudewad who admittedly was not related to him by
blood. However, we have gone through the order passed in the matter
of Tukaram. Though it is a fact that even validity issued to Sanjay
Nagorao Karewad was relied upon describing him to be maternal
uncle, that was not the sole piece of evidence. As is mentioned
hereinabove, even the school record of Tukaram's grandfather
Tukaram Kondiba Karewad of 1953 was examined by the vigilance
officer and was relied upon by the committee. Therefore, the approach
of the committee in the impugned order passed in the matter of Mamta
and Swapnil and the submission of the learned AGP supporting it that
Tukaram was granted certificate of validity simply on the basis of the
11 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
validity of Sanjay who was not related to him by blood, is not factually
correct and is rather perverse.
19. Consequently, though petitioner - Swapnil is entitled to
have a certificate of validity based on the similar certificate issued to
his brother Tukaram, its benefit cannot be extended to petitioners
Mayuri and Mamta.
20. Consequently, the claims of Mayuri and Mamta will have to
be considered independently ignoring the validity of Tukaram.
21. It does appear that the school record of grandfather
Gyanoba, as observed by the committee, does not inspire confidence.
Similarly some other school record, noticed in the order passed in the
matter of Mamta and Swapnil has been rightly refused to be relied
upon by the committee with the observation that there was something
fishy about the school record, which in our considered view, is
unassailable.
22. Thus, there was no sufficient and cogent evidence before
the committee to substantiate the claims of petitioners Mayuri and
Mamta. The committee has appreciated the evidence in the correct
perspective and has taken a plausible view which cannot be unsettled
in exercise of the writ jurisdiction, this being not a power of the
appellate Court.
12 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
23. What transpires is that the school record of grandfather
Gyanoba Kondiba Karewad was apparently manipulated and in the
school record of 1961 of real paternal uncle, word 'Mahadev' has been
added subsequently below the original entry in the caste column 'Koli'
whereas the school record of real paternal uncle Gangaram Gyanoba
Karewad of 1961 clearly reads in the caste column as 'Koli'. Besides,
several other contrary entries of Koli were revealed in the vigilance
enquiry as mentioned in the impugned order, the observations and the
conclusions of the committee to discard the claims of sisters Mayuri
and Mamta cannot be interferred with.
24. Even if the committee has now formed an opinion about
Tukaram having concealed contrary entry, and had practiced fraud
while obtaining certificate of validity, in our considered view, we cannot
go into that aspect since Tukaram is not before us and we do not
intend to cause any prejudice to him by undertaking scrutiny of the
observations of the committee about he having practiced fraud. It
would be a matter which would be directly and substantially in issue in
a matter which the committee has decided to reopen for undertaking
fresh scrutiny of his claim.
25. The committee has then observed that the committee
which granted validity to Tukaram was headed by one Mr. V.S. Patil
13 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
and the functioning of the committee then was regarded as dubious by
the government which directed re-consideration of the decisions made
by it. We need not deliberate on this. So long as the certificates of
validity issued by following necessary procedure in accordance with
law are not confiscated and cancelled in accordance with law as is
prescribed under section 7(1) of the Maharashtra Act no. XXIII of 2001,
the committee could not have refused to extend the benefit of the
validities in the family by questioning the functioning of the then
scrutiny committee.
26. Apart from the fact that affinity test is not a litmus test as
laid down in the matter of Anand (supra) and Maharashtra Adiwasi
Jamat (supra), once in Tukaram's matter he could get through the
affinity test, in our considered view it would be a relevant fact. Since it
is a matter of social claim, once a family member gets through such
affinity test, it cannot be expected that each family member should also
independently get through the affinity test.
27. On a consideration of the entire conspectus of the matters,
evidence before the committee and the afore-mentioned aspect, the
committee could not have refused to extend benefit of validity
possessed by Tukaram to Swapnil in the light of the ratio laid down in
the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Jamat (supra), the impugned
14 WP / 1999 / 2018 +
orders, therefore, are not sustainable in law and are liable to be
quashed and set aside.
28. Writ petition no. 1999 of 2018 of Mayuri Hanmant Karewad
and writ petition no. 8335 of 2021 of Mamta Hanmant Karewad are
dismissed. Rule stands discharged in these petitions.
29. Writ petition no. 8318 of 2021 of Swapnil Laxmanrao
Karewad is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set
aside to the extent of Swapnil Laxmanrao Karewad. He shall be
issued a certificate of validity of 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe in the
the prescribed format. The validity shall be subject to the final outcome
of Tukaram's matter which the committee has decided to re-open. He
shall not be entitled to claim equities. Rule is made absolute
accordingly.
30. Pending civil application is disposed of.
[ NEERAJ P. DHOTE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
