Bombay High Court
Ishika Shnkar Bodhanapod vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 23 October, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Neeraj Pradeep Dhote
1 2WP13123.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
2 WRIT PETITION NO.13123 OF 2023
Ishika Shankar Bodhanapod,
Age: 19 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Bolegaon, Tq. Biloli,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Kinvat, Headquarter, Aurangabad
through its Deputy Director (R) ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A. A. Jagatkar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATED : 23rd OCTOBER 2023
PER COURT : -
. Heard.
2. Petitioner is challenging the order of invalidation passed
by the Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding under Section 7 of the
Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, invalidating her claim of being
belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:50 :::
2 2WP13123.2023.odt
3. We have heard both the sides finally in view of the
exigency, inasmuch as the petitioner is seeking admission in the
current round of Centralized Admission Process.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's father possesses a certificate of validity, which was
granted after a vigilance inquiry. Though the committee observes
that he had obtained it by resorting to fraud, till the time it is not
confiscated and cancelled by following the due process of law, the
petitioner cannot be denied the benefit in the light of the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. [Civil Appeal
No. 2502 of 2022, decided on 24 March 2023].
5. He would submit that the observation made by the
Committee relying upon the so-called manipulated and bogus record
of cousin grandfather Gangaram Gangana Bodhanapod was very well
available to the Scrutiny Committee and the Vigilance Cell when
Shankar's validity was being considered. Even if now Committee
decides to resort to re-inquiry in his matter, it will have to substantiate
its inference about he having obtained certificate of validity by
resorting to fraud or misrepresentation.
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:50 :::
3 2WP13123.2023.odt
6. Learned advocate would lastly submit that the Committee
has relied upon the invalidation of an individual who does not fall in
the petitioner's genealogy. Neither there is any reference in the
vigilance report about it nor was the fact brought to the notice of the
petitioner before the Committee resorted to rely upon it and
concluded that he was from the petitioner's family and had faced
invalidation so that he could have an opportunity to dispute it.
7. Per contra, the learned AGP supports the order. He
submits that it is revealed during vigilance inquiry that the school
record of the cousin grandfather Gangaram Gangana Bodhanapod
was, in fact, forged one. There were blank pages in the register and
all the entries were made in the recent past at one go. He would also
submit that even there is a manipulation inasmuch as, letter 'lu' has
been added subsequently in the school record of Shankar and
petitioner's father and uncle Ashok. He would submit that since
petitioner's father had succeeded in obtaining certificate of validity by
resorting to misrepresentation and fraud, the Committee has the
jurisdiction and power to undertake fresh scrutiny of his matter and
the petition be dismissed.
8. Having heard both the sides and having gone through the
papers, it appears that the oldest entry which the committee has now
doubted in respect of Gangaram Gangana Bodhanapod of 1953, was
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:50 :::
4 2WP13123.2023.odt
very well relied upon by the then Scrutiny Committee while validating
the petitioner's father's tribe certificate. If such is the state of affairs,
till the time the Committee does not extend an opportunity to
Shankar, petitioner's father, to explain these facts and does not take
its inference to the logical end by invalidating his claim and
confiscating and cancelling the validity certificate issued to him by the
the then committee, it would be premature to reach such a
conclusion.
9. Besides, the petitioner's father is not before us. We do
not intend to make any comment in respect of the alleged
misrepresentation or fraud as it is likely to cause a serious prejudice to
him. That would be the course available for the Committee to
undertake in the proceedings which it has decided to reopen.
10. Similar would be the fate of the grounds being relied
upon by the Committee regarding the addition of letter 'lu' in the
school record of the petitioner's father and uncle.
11. Invalidation of one Vitthal Piraji Bodhanapod is also being
referred to by the Committee to disbelieve the petitioner's claim and
to buttress its inference about petitioner's father having concealed it.
That may be so. However, as has been noticed, invalidation of the
Vitthal Piraji Bodhanapod is not a fact which is revealed in the
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:50 :::
5 2WP13123.2023.odt
vigilance inquiry. Obviously, the petitioner had no occasion to
controvert this. Independently, if the Committee has decided to rely
upon that invalidation, it was imperative for it to have informed the
petitioner about it and to have solicited her stand touching that.
Using contrary material without notice to a party is contrary to the
principles of natural justice and inconsistent with the decision in the
matter of Sayanna Versus State of Maharashtra and others [Civil
Appeal No. 6253 of 2009, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
15 September 2009].
12. In the result, when the petitioner's father possesses a
certificate of validity, which the Committee is still to confiscate and
cancel by resorting to appropriate proceedings, the petitioner cannot
be denied to have the benefit. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
[i] The petition is partly allowed.
[ii] The impugned Judgment and Order dated 05.10.2023
passed by the Scrutiny Committee, is quashed and set
aside.
[iii] The Committee shall immediately issue a certificate of
validity to the petitioner of 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled
Tribe.
6 2WP13123.2023.odt
[iv] The Law Officer of the Committee is present in the Court
and has been assisting the learned AGP. Both of them
shall communicate this decision to the Committee.
[v] The petitioner shall not claim any equity.
[vi] The certificate of validity would be subject to the final
outcome of the petition and the matter of her father
which the Committee intends to reopen.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
