Bombay High Court
Sairaj Bhojram Indrod vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 23 October, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Neeraj Pradeep Dhote
1 4&21WP13202.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
4 WRIT PETITION NO.13202 OF 2023
Shubham s/o Yalappa Endrod,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. At Bothi, Tq. Umri, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. R. Yadav - Lonikar
...
WITH
21 WRIT PETITION NO.13295 OF 2023
Sairaj s/o Bhojram Indrod,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Student,
R/o. At Post Bothi, Tq. Umri,
Dist. Nanded. ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. R. Yadav - Lonikar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
DATED : 23rd OCTOBER 2023
PER COURT : -
. Heard.
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:45 :::
2 4&21WP13202.2023.odt
2. The petitioners, who are the cousins, are challenging the
common order passed by the Scrutiny Committee confiscating and
cancelling their 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe certificates by
resorting to Section 7(2) of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001.
3. Considering the urgency, we have heard both the sides
finally at the stage of admission.
4. The learned advocates for the petitioners submit that the
petitioner Shubham's father Yellappa is a validity holder. He was
granted certificate of validity by following due process of law. Even
Vigilance Inquiry was conducted at that time and his claim was
validated.
5. The learned advocates submit that the petitioners are
entitled to derive the benefit of Yellappa's validity. There is no
dispute about the genealogy. They are ready to face the
consequences as observed in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition No. 6263 of 2017,
decided by Bombay High Court on 20.06.2017, and submit that
certificate of validity be issued to them subject to the final outcome
of the Yellappa's matter which the committee has decided to reopen.
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:45 :::
3 4&21WP13202.2023.odt
6. Learned AGP strenuously points out several contrary
entries and manipulations resorted to by the petitioners and their
relations. Though the vigilance inquiry was conducted while
considering the claim of Yellappa, several such manipulations could
not be traced which could be traced in the current vigilance inquiry.
The committee has elaborately dealt with and observed as to how
there are several circumstances which indicate that Yellappa had
obtained certificate of validity by misrepresentation and by
concealment of the contrary and by resorting to manipulated record.
The Committee has the power and jurisdiction to undertake a fresh
scrutiny which it has decided to do. The petitioners cannot be allowed
to derive the benefits of the fraud practice by Yellappa.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers.
8. Apparently, Yellappa was granted validity certificate by
following due process of law. Rather it is not the observation of the
committee that there was any procedural lapse. A vigilance was
conducted and for the reasons discussed in the order in his matter, he
was held to be entitled to have a certificate of validity.
9. If the committee on a fresh scrutiny draws an inference
about Yellappa having practised fraud and has decided to reopen his
::: Uploaded on - 23/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 24/10/2023 14:42:45 :::
4 4&21WP13202.2023.odt
inquiry, the inference will have to be substantiated by extending an
opportunity to him of being heard. That would take its own course.
The circumstances, which according to the Committee constituted
fraud, cannot be discussed here behind his back. We cannot make
some observations when he is not before us. If the circumstances
referred to by the Committee in the impugned order make out a case
of fraud, it would always be open for the Committee to undertake
that scrutiny and take the inquiry to its logical end.
10. The fact remains that Yellappa was granted certificate of
validity by following due process of law as is contemplated and
expected by 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 th March, 2023].
If that be so, till the time Yellappa's validity certificate is not
confiscated and cancelled by the Committee by following due
process of law, the petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of
having a validity albeit subject to the final outcome of Yellappa's
matter.
ORDER
[i] The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
[ii] The common impugned Judgment and Order dated
27.09.2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, is quashed
and set aside.
5 4&21WP13202.2023.odt
[iii] The Committee shall immediately issue a certificate of
tribe validity to the petitioners of 'Mannervarlu'
Scheduled Tribe.
[iv] The Law Officer of the Scrutiny 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 petitioners shall not claim any equity.
[vi] The certificate of validity would be subject to the final
outcome of the matters and the validity of Yellappa which
the Committee intends to reopen.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE JUDGE
SG Punde
