Bombay High Court
Anmol Jayprakash Perke vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
2023:BHC-AUG:21925-DB
1 WP / 4343 / 2021+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2021
Anmol S/o Jayprakash Perke .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Directorate of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State,
3, Mahapalika Marg, Opp. Metro Cinema,
Mumbai
3] The University of Mumbai,
M.G. Road, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 032
Through its Registrar
4] Sir J.J. College of Architecutre,
78/3, Dr. D.N. Road,
Mumbai Pin - 400 001.
Through its Principal
5] Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee,
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4825 OF 2021
Gaurav S/o Ratnakar Perke .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2023 01:24:32 :::
2 WP / 4343 / 2021+
2] Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee,
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 4910 OF 2021
Apurva D/o Ratnakar Perke .. Petitioner
Vesus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Medical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Director of Medical Education,
Saint John Hospital Campus,
Mumbai - 32.
3] Maharashtra University of Health Science,
Dindori Road, Mhasrul,
Nasik, Dist. Nasik,
Through its Registrar
4] Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental School,
Dr. Ajinkya D.Y. Patil Knowledge City,
Charoli (Bk.), Lohegaon, Pune
Dist. Pune
Through its Dean
(Amendment carried out as per Court's
order dated 14 June 2021)
5] Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee,
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad
Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioners in all WPs : Mr. C.R. Thorat
AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. S.G. Sangale
...
::: Uploaded on - 12/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 13/10/2023 01:24:32 :::
3 WP / 4343 / 2021+
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 10 OCTOBER 2023
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. In view
of the exigency, at the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard
finally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners are challenging the order of invalidation of
their tribe claim of Mannervarlu scheduled tribe. Though the impugned
order was a common order, the petitioners are assailing it by separate
writ petitions. Hence, this common order.
3. The learned advocate for the petitioners would advert our
attention to the genealogy regarding which there is no dispute or the
fact that there are more than 17 validities in the family as mentioned in
the impugned order, since the year 1998 till 2011. He would submit
that even this Court has granted the conditional validities to some viz.
Shivam Digambar Perke and Sumit Maroti Perke in writ petition no.
9400 of 2023 and 9552 of 2023 respectively. He would submit that the
committee had no reason to ignore these many validities in the family
and even the petitioners could have been granted conditional validity
even if, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, the committee
expressed its intention to undertake review of the matters in respect of
the validity holders, for alleged fraud practised by them.
4 WP / 4343 / 2021+
4. The learned advocate would then submit that though there
were two initial invalidities wherein similar claims of Jaiprakash
Jaywantrao Perke and Dhananjay Dattatray Manjramkar (Perke) were
rejected in the year 1986, the invalidities would not operate as res
judicata and would not prevent the family members to substantiate their
claims at some later point of time. Though the committee has
observed that the subsequent validities were obtained by concealing
these two first invalidities, the approach of the committee is incorrect;
rather perverse and arbitrary. He would submit that the petitioners are
ready to run the risk of facing the consequences as laid down in the
matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017).
5. The learned AGP supports the order. He submits that the
committee has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons as to why it was
not ready to extend the benefit of number of validities in the family.
He would submit that the validity certificates were obtained by
practising fraud. The committee has inherent power and jurisdiction to
undertake review in the light of the decision in the matters of Raju
Ramsingh Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar; (2008) 9 SCC
54, T. Vijendradas & Another vs M. Subramanian & Others; (2007)
8 SCC 751 and Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde v State of Maharashtra (Writ
Petition No. 1954/2009 decided on 22/08/2012). The learned AGP
5 WP / 4343 / 2021+
would submit that apart from the above state-of-affairs, the committee
could trace several contrary entries in respect of the family members
as elaborately enlisted in the tables in the impugned order wherein the
petitioners' family members were shown in the school record as Munu,
Munurvar, Munurvar Kapu, Manuvar.
6. The learned AGP would also submit that even the
committee could trace that the petitioners' family members had
resorted to some manipulation wherein the school record was
manipulated. Letter ("लू") "lu" was added to the description of the caste
'Munurvar'. Even the revenue record of the petitioners' ancestors
described them as Munurvar. He would, therefore, submit that the
committee has taken a plausible decision to undertake review since
concealment of all these contrary entries and the manipulated record,
according to it, would constitute fraud.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and
perused the papers.
8. Admittedly, there are 19 validities in the family, two of
which have been issued pursuant to the order of this Court in the
matter of Shivam Digambar Perke and Sumit Maroti Perke. The
impugned order itself refers to several validities. It is not the stand of
the committee that these are not the individuals from the blood
relations of the petitioners. It is also not the stand of the scrutiny
6 WP / 4343 / 2021+
committee that the validity certificates were issued without following
due process of law.
9. True it is that there were two initial invalidities of the year
1986. The committee observes that the subsequent validity holders
had obtained the validities concealing these two initial invalidities. In
our considered view, such approach of the committee is not
sustainable in law. Admittedly, there cannot be a dispute about the fact
that the claim for validation of a caste or tribe certificate issued under
the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 (Act) would result in the
decision which would be individual centric, particularly the order of
invalidation.
10. By virtue of section 8 of the Act, burden is on the claimant
to substantiate the claim by leading cogent and convincing evidence.
If a family member is unable to discharge the burden, obviously it
would result in dismissal of the claim. However, that would not
preclude another family member from making an attempt to seek the
validity by leading cogent evidence. If he is able to do that, we cannot
comprehend as to why his case cannot be decided independently on
its own merits. If it is a matter of social status, a person would be
entitled to substantiate the claim by leading necessary evidence which
would discharge the burden. Obviously, such orders passed in respect
of some individuals would not operate as res judicata and bind the
7 WP / 4343 / 2021+
other family members. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of
arguments that the other family members who were able to secure
certificates of validities from subsequent committees, that would not
constitute a circumstance leading to fraud, per se.
11. The committee has also referred to few other
circumstances which according to it would reveal fraud. Since it would
be a mixed question of fact and law, as to whether a particular
circumstance would constitute fraud, according to us, it will not be
appropriate for this Court in these proceedings to make any comment
in that regard as those validity holders are not before us and it would
not be appropriate for us to make any comment which could have
some bearing on the matters which the committee has decided to
reopen.
12. We have discussed the afore-mentioned circumstance of
alleged concealment of the validities only because it involve a pure
question of law as to whether the decision rendered by the committee
in the matter of a family member regarding invalidation would bind the
other family members. Consequently, we do not feel it appropriate to
discuss the other circumstances which according to the committee
substantiates its inference about the validity holders having obtained
the validities by practising fraud.
8 WP / 4343 / 2021+
13. Since the petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing the
consequences, as laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar
(supra), when this Court has directed the validities to be issued to
afore-mentioned two individuals whose validities have been expressly
stated to be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the
committee has decided to reopen in respect of the validity holders,
even the petitioners deserve to be extended the limited benefit of
having certificate of validity.
14. In the result, the following order :-
I) The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders
are quashed and set aside.
II) The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribe
validity certificate to the petitioners as belonging to 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without adding anything. The
validities shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the
committee has decided to re-open.
III) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
IV) Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
