Bombay High Court
Himanshu Devram Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 5 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:17192-DB
1 wp 4996.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4996 OF 2024
Himanshu Devram Thakur .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
Shri Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. R. Yadav Lonikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 05 AUGUST 2024.
FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-
. Heard both the sides finally considering urgency expressed
by the petitioner.
2. This petition is directed against the judgment and order
dated 10.11.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny
Committee confiscating and invalidating the tribe certificate of
the petitioner for 'Thakur' (Scheduled Tribe). He seeks to rely on
certificate of validity issued to his father - Devram and cousin,
Nitin. It is pointed out that petitioner's father Devram and
cousin Nitin were issued with the validity certificates by the
High Court.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader opposes
submissions of the petitioner. He would submit that Committee
2 wp 4996.24
rightly rejected the tribe claim as the validity certificates pressed
into service were unreliable due to suppression of material facts.
The school record of the close relatives was found to be in-
compatible with the tribe claim of the petitioner. He would
further point out that the Committee has proposed to challenge
the decision of the petitioner's father and Nitin by preferring
review/special leave petitions.
4. The learned A. G. P. has pointed out that no independent
vigilance enquiry was conducted in the petitioner's matter. The
vigilance report prepared in the matter of Pundalik Gulab
Thakur was adopted by the petitioner. The genealogy given in
Pundalik's matter does not tally with the genealogy given by the
petitioner.
5. We have considered rival submissions of the parties.
Petitioner's father was issued with the validity certificate by
High Court in Writ Petition No. 2063 of 1996 vide order dated
10.06.2004. Petitioner's uncle was also issued with the validity
certificate vide common judgment and order dated 31.07.2017 in
Writ Petition No. 793 of 2012.
6. Though considerable period is lapsed, no steps have been
taken to challenge judgment and order passed in the matter of
petitioner's father and his cousin Nitin. As long as their
validities are in force, the petitioner is entitled to receive validity
certificate on the ground of parity. It would be discriminatory to
deprive the petitioner from same social status when self same
3 wp 4996.24
record has undergone the scrutiny.
7. It reveals that petitioner filed reply dated 04.11.2022 to the
vigilance report of Pundalik. It was specifically mentioned that
Pundalik had tried to mislead the Committee by giving false
genealogy. In order to take benefit of validities of petitioner's
father and cousin, misrepresentation was made by Pundalik. We
do not find that the Scrutiny Committee has dealt with this
aspect of the matter, which it should have done. The submission
of the learned A. G. P. cannot be accepted, which is raised for the
first time in the High Court. It would be open for the Committee
to examine that aspect of the matter if that would be fraud.
8. Petitioner is ready to run the risk as contemplated in the
matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others judgment dated 27 July 2018 in
W. P. No. 5611 of 2018. We are of the considered view that the
impugned judgment and order is unsustainable and liable to be
quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get validity
certificate conditionally. We, therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
A. The writ petition is allowed partly.
B. The impugned judgment and order dated 10.11.2022
passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed
and set aside.
4 wp 4996.24
C. The respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue
validity certificate of 'Thakur' (Scheduled Tribe) to the petitioner
immediately, which shall be subject to the outcome of
reverification of validity certificates to be undertaken by the
Committee.
D. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
E. The writ petition is disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 24
