Bombay High Court
Chaitali Dilip Paralikar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 8 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:17368-DB
1 wp 10371.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10371 OF 2018
Rohan Rajesh Parlikar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vivek U. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri R. K. Ingole, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10372 OF 2018
Chaitali Deelip Parlikar .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Vivek U. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri R. K. Ingole, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 08 AUGUST, 2024.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both the sides. Petitioners' tribe claims have been
rejected by the common order dated 04.08.2018 passed by the
respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee.
2 Considering exigency, we have heard both the sides
2 wp 10371.18
simultaneously and finally.
3. It is being pointed out that petitioner - Rohan's real sister
Payal, whose claim was also similarly invalidated had filed Writ
Petition No. 9943 of 2018. By judgment dated 30 August 2018,
referring to fourteen validities in the family of near blood
relatives, expressly enlisted in the judgment and undertaking
scrutiny of the judgment and order under challenge, she was held
entitled to have a certificate of validity. Considering the fact that
like in the present matter, the Committee which decided Payal's
matter had also expressed its intention to undertake
reverification of the validity holders, she was directed to be
issued with the certificate of validity subject to final outcome of
the matters to be reopened.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing consequences 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 and they may be issued with the
conditional validity certificates.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would oppose the
request.
6. When admittedly, there are numerous validities in the
family, irrespective of the fact that the Committee has been
3 wp 10371.18
entertaining some reservation and is referring to the
circumstances, which according to it would constitute fraud, it
would be inappropriate for this Court in the present matters to
objectively scrutinize such inference drawn by the Committee for
the reason that the validity holders are not before us and have no
opportunity to put forth their version in respect of the inference
drawn by the Committee.
7. Needless to state that since the allegations of fraud are
serious having drastic repercussions, the Committee will have to
substantiate such inference by undertaking a detailed enquiry by
extending an opportunity to these validity holders. It would be a
long drawn process. Petitioners cannot be made to wait till
conclusion of these reverifications. It is a matter of record that,
the order in the Payal's matter was passed on 30 August 2018
and for last almost six years the Committee has not been able to
take any decision in those reopened matters.
8. Be that as it may, since the petitioner Rohan's real sister
possesses certificate of validity issued pursuant to order of this
Court and as there are several other validities also, some of
which were also issued by this Court, impugned order is required
to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
a. The writ petitions are allowed partly.
4 wp 10371.18
b. Impugned common judgment and order order dated
04.08.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is
quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioners.
c. The respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee shall
immediately issue certificates of validities to both the petitioners
of 'Rajgond' (Scheduled Tribe) in prescribed proforma G without
incorporating any conditions.
d. Certificates of validities of the petitioners would be
coterminous with the validities the respondent No. 2/Committee
intends to reopen or has already reopened.
e. Petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 24
