Bombay High Court
Bajrang Jairam Singanwad vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 13 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:18209-DB
1 wp 12001.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 12001 OF 2023
Gayatri Ramchandra Singanwad
and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate a/w Shri S. S. Phatale,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mrs. P. J. Bharad, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 12205 OF 2023
Bajrang Jairam Singanwad .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate a/w Shri S. S. Phatale,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S. P. Joshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 13 AUGUST 2024.
FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-
. Heard both the sides finally considering urgency in the
matters.
2. We propose to decide both the petitions by common order as
2 wp 12001.23
the petitioners are blood relatives and there is common record for
deciding their tribe claims. Both of them claim to be belonging to
the Scheduled Tribe 'Mannervarlu'.
3. The tribe certificates of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.
12001 of 2023 were confiscated and invalidated by common
judgment and order dated 12.09.2023. The tribe certificate of the
sole petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12205 of 2023 was invalidated
vide judgment and order dated 25.09.2023. These two judgments
of the scrutiny committee are questioned before us.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no
dispute about the genealogy and the relationship of the
petitioners with the validity holders. He refers to eight distinct
orders of the High Court granting validities to the relatives
appearing in the genealogy. He would submit that the self same
record has already been considered by the Scrutiny Committee as
well as High Court on different occasions. The petitioners are
entitled to validity certificates.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders would repel the
submissions of the petitioners. They would submit that the
relationship of the petitioners with the validity holders is
disputed. There is suppression of earlier orders of invalidation.
They would refer to order of remand dated 31.01.2023 passed in
Writ Petition No. 318 of 2023. They would point out that the
genealogy which is brought before the Committee did not disclose
branch of Rajanna Gangaram Singanwad. Lastly, it is submitted
3 wp 12001.23
that school record of Dattattraya, Shankar, Laxman, Ram,
Avdhut and Surekha was incompatible with the tribe claims.
6. The learned A. G. P. refer to the order dated 26.07.2024
passed by this Court in the matter of Yash Shrinivas Satelikar
Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition No. 7720
of 2024 and order dated 24.07.2023 in the matter of Chaitanya
D/o Sanjay Palekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in
Writ Petition No. 8531 of 2022.
7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties.
Petitioners have annexed following judgment and orders passed
by the coordinate benches of the High Court granting validity
certificates to the respective petitioners, who are close relatives of
the petitioners :
Sr. Name of the Petitioner Writ Petition Date of order
No. number
1 Vaishnavi Jairam W. P. No. 2075 of 03.08.2018
Singanwad 2018
2 Viabhav Jairam W. P. No. 8943 of 03.08.2018
Singanwad 2018
3 Sanket Bharat Singanwad W. P. No. 8831 of 31.07.2019
2019
4 Venkatesh Jairam W. P. No. 12603 18.11.2021
Singanwad of 2021
5 Ashwini Ashokrao W. P. No. 12603 18.11.2021
Singanwad of 2021
6 Kanhaiya Prakash W. P. No. 13586 21.07.2023
Singanwad of 2021
7 Aresh Ashok Singanwad W. P. No. 10720 28.07.2023
4 wp 12001.23
of 2019
8 Dharmaji Maroti W. P. No. 10466 28.07.2023
Singanwad of 2019
8. It is relevant to note that validity holder Sanket referred
above is real brother of petitioner, Shradha. Another validity
holder Aresh is real brother of the petitioner No. 3 Vishal. We
have gone through the orders passed by the High Court in above
matters. We find that self same record was considered. The
validity certificates were granted subject to outcome of
reverification. Unless the validity certificates are revoked, it is
not possible to deny the same social status to all the petitioners.
9. The scrutiny committee did not entertain any doubt about
the relationship of the petitioners with the validity holders. In
one of the genealogies there is omission of branch of Rajanna
Gangaram but that is too remote to infer any fraud. We,
therefore, do not approve of the submissions of the learned A. G.
P.
10. Though the school record of few relatives of the petitioners
is shown to be incompatible with the tribe claims of the
petitioners, at this juncture we cannot embark on an enquiry as
to the effect of those entries on the petitioners' claims. The
validities of the relatives of the petitioners are still intact. That
would be the lookout of the scrutiny committee while conducting
reverification. It is already been informed by the learned A. G. P.
that Committee has issued show cause notices to the validity
5 wp 12001.23
holders.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners is right in referring
to order dated 25.07.2023 in the matter of Bankam Balaji
Maldode Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ
Petition No. 9047 of 2020 to buttress his submissions that
orders of invalidation do not operate as resjudicata and they are
orders in persona.
12. The learned A. G. Ps. have referred to the judgment in the
matter of Chaitanya D/o Sanjay Palekar Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (supra). It is distinguishable on
facts. In that matter, petitioner's father and uncle had suffered
invalidation. Suppressing that, they had obtained tribe
certificates and got those validities. A false affidavit was also
filed. This type of brazen fraud is absent in the present cases.
Similarly, the judgment cited in the matter of Yash Shrinivas
Satelikar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra) is
not applicable for the distinguishing features recorded in para
No. 15 of the judgment.
13. The petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing
consequences in view of the law laid down 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 find that the impugned judgments and orders are
liable to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, pass following
order :
6 wp 12001.23
ORDER
A. The writ petitions are allowed partly.
B. The impugned common judgment and order dated
12.09.2023 and judgment and order 25.09.2023 passed by the
respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set aside.
C. The respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue
validity certificates of 'Mannervarlu' (Scheduled Tribe) to the
petitioners immediately, which shall be subject to outcome of
reverification of validity holders.
D. The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
F. The writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 24
