Bombay High Court
Kiran Laluprasad Yambadwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 4 September, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Shailesh P. Brahme
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 691 OF 2018
KIRAN LALUPRASAD YAMBADWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar
AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.G. Sangale
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER 2023
PER COURT ( PER : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J) :
1. Heard learned counsel for both the sides for final disposal at
the admission stage.
2. Being aggrieved by invalidation of the tribe certificate of
the petitioner being 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe, he is before us
challenging judgment and order dated 27.10.2017, passed by the
Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner is relying upon validity certificates
issued to Krushna, Gangaram and Gangadhar. Krushna is real brother of
the petitioner. A pre-constitutional document is also relied upon by the
petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned AGP supports impugned judgment and
order. He would submit that the school record of the relatives of the
petitioner was verified during vigilance enquiry and it was found to be
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2023 01:52:49 :::
2
incompatible with the claim of the petitioner. The validity certificates
are not reliable because they were procured by misrepresentation. The
contrary record was not properly appreciated in their matters.
4. Before referring to the validity certificates, we propose to
consider pre-constitutional document of Fasli 1344 (1934 AD). The
document and its translation is at page no. 137. There is no discussion of
the Fasli record in the impugned judgment and order. The document in
question has greater probative value. We find that it was not even
referred to vigilance enquiry. The document was placed on record by the
petitioner along with his reply. There is reference of the document in
paragraph no. 11 of the reply. Thus Committee has committed illegality
in overlooking the clinching piece of evidence.
5. The petitioner is relying upon the validity certificate issued
to his brother Krushna, Gangaram and Gangadhar. Learned counsel has
placed on record the reasoned orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee
in the matter of earlier validity holders. The relevant record is already
scrutinized. We are of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled
to validity certificate on certain condition. The Scrutiny Committee erred
in discarding the validity certificates.
6. Learned AGP has strenuously contended that the record of
Gangaram is found to be interpolated and there were contrary entries. As
the Scrutiny Committee is conducting re-verification, we do not propose
::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 07/09/2023 01:52:49 :::
3
to record any finding in this regard. Unless the validity certificates are
revoked, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the same
social status.
7. For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order :
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and order dated 27.10.2017,
passed by the Scrutiny Committee, is quashed and set aside.
iii. The Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity
certificate to the petitioner as belonging to 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe, which shall be subject to the decision to be
taken by the Committee in the matters which it intends to
reopen in respect of the validity holders.
iv. The certificate of validity shall be issued in the
prescribed format without incorporating other
conditions/additions.
v. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
spc/
