Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Jyoti Suresh Wankhede Alias Jyoti ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 23717 Bom

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 23717 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 August, 2024

Bombay High Court

Jyoti Suresh Wankhede Alias Jyoti ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its ... on 12 August, 2024

Author: Mangesh S. Patil

Bench: Mangesh S. Patil

2024:BHC-AUG:18053-DB

                                           1                           47.WP-2906-2021.doc




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            Writ Petition No. 2906 OF 2021

              Jyoti d/o Suresh Wankhede
              (Sau. Jyoti Dinesh Devare (Thakur),
              Age : 39 years, Occ. Student,
              R/o : Songir, Taluka and
              Dist. Dhule.                                            ...Petitioner
                                          Versus
              1.   The State of Maharashtra,
                   Trough its Secretary,
                   Tribal Development Department,
                   Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

              2.   Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
                   Committee, Nandurbar Division,
                   NandurbarThrough its Member Secretary.

              3.   The Sub Divisional Officer,
                   Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.                        ...Respondents
                                               ___
                    Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar i/by Mr. M.A. Golegaonkar, Advocate
                                     for the Petitioner.
                          Mr. A.R Kale, Addl.GP for Respondent/State.
                                            ___
                                       CORAM      : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                                    SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ..
                                         DATE     : 12 AUGUST 2024

              FINAL ORDER [Per: Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :
              .    This   is   being   heard    finally   at   the   admission       stage
              considering exigency in the matter.
                                 2                           47.WP-2906-2021.doc




2.      The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated
25.02.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, confiscating and
invalidating his tribe certificate of 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
Petitioner seeks to rely on the validity certificates of Shaligram,
Prashant, Govind, Dheeraj and Nishant.

3.      Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Dheeraj
and Nishant were issued with validity certificates by orders of
the High Court. The old record which has already been verified,
supports the tribe claim. He would refer to old record of
Ramchandra Motiram Thakur.


4.      Learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and order.
He   would     submit    that       the   school   record    of     Narayan,
Ramchandra, Dnyandev, Bhaskar is incompatible with the tribe
claim of the petitioner. He would submit that the validity
certificates were rightly discarded by the Scrutiny Committee.


5.      We have considered submissions of the parties. The
relationship of the petitioner with validity holder is undisputed.
Vigilance inquiry was conducted in the matter of Shaligram and
then he was issued with validity certificate. Nishant and Dheeraj
were issued with validity certificates by common judgment and
order     passed   by   the     coordinate    bench    in    Writ      Petition
No.3994/1999. Prashant was also issued with validity certificate.
We do not find any material to discard the validities. When
selfsame record was under consideration, the Committee could
                             3                     47.WP-2906-2021.doc




not have discriminated the petitioner.


6.   It reveals from record that the petitioner is relying on
school record of Shivlal of 1919, Shamrao - 1916 and
Ramchandra - 1922. Being pre-independence record, it has
greater probative value. It corroborates the petitioner's claim.
The contrary entry pressed into service by learned AGP was that
of Narayan Ramchandra of 1926. It is subsequent in time. The
earlier pre-constitution record would prevail over entry of 1926.
The Committee should have granted validity certificate to the
petitioner.


7.   Nishant and Dheeraj were issued with validity certificates
by High Court vide common judgment dated 01.10.2023. The
Committee has proposed to file review application in the matter
of Nishant and Dheeraj. All the validity holders are issued show
cause notices.

8.   The petitioner is ready to run the risk as per the judgment
rendered in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. the State of
Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.5611/2018. She
deserves validity certificate conditionally. We, therefore, pass
following order :
                                ORDER

a. The writ petition is allowed partly.

b. The judgment and order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

4 47.WP-2906-2021.doc

c. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificate of 'Thakur' scheduled tribe to the petitioner forthwith. The same shall be subject to the outcome of re-verification and review orders of the High Court.

d. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.





                SHAILESH P. BRAHME                       MANGESH S. PATIL
                    JUDGE                                    JUDGE




Najeeb..
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter