Bombay High Court
Trupti Yogesh Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 19 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:18781-DB
1 wp 8389.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8389 OF 2024
Trupti Yogesh Chavan .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents
Shri Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S. P. Joshi, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 19 AUGUST, 2024.
FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :-
. Heard both the sides finally at the admission stage as there
is exigency in the matter.
2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 05.07.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny
Committee confiscating and invalidating her tribe certificate of
'Thakur' scheduled tribe, though there was validity certificate
issued to her father Yogesh.
3. Learned counsel for the petiitoner submits that petitioner's
father Yogesh was issued with the validity certificate after
following due procedure of law and considering school record of
grandfather of the petitioner. She would also rely on the school
2 wp 8389.24
record of cousin grandfather Mohan of the year 1947. The
learned counsel would further submit that petitioner's father was
issued with the validity certificate on the basis of validity issued
to Ambadas Baburao Chavan and the relationship of the
petitioner with Ambadas was established by the genealogy given
by the petitioner's mother and grandfather before the Committee.
4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would
vehemently oppose the submissions of the petitioner. He tenders
on record original papers of petitioner and her father. He would
submit that the genealogies produced on record before the
Committee are inconsistent. There is reason to raise suspicion
about relationship between Ambadas and the petitioner or her
father. He would point out statement of petitioner's mother
Aruna recorded before the Committee. It is further pointed out
that school record of Baburao and Sharda was found to have been
tampered and would indicate caste as Hindu Thakar. He would
submit that the Committee has properly decided the matter and
no interference is called for.
5. We have considered submissions of the parties and also
have gone through the original papers. In case of petitioner's
father, there was a vigilance enquiry. The school record of
petitioner's grandfather Manohar of 1957 was verified and found
to be genuine. The affinity test was recorded in his favour. The
committee while granting validity by a speaking order relied on
validity issued to Ambadas Baburao Chavan. We find that in
3 wp 8389.24
view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 326, the
validity of petitioner's father would enure to her benefit of the
petitioner. Unless it is revoked, the petitioner cannot be denied
same social status.
6. We find that there were three genealogies before the
Committee. First genealogy was given by petitioner's mother
Aruna before vigilance officer on 29.02.2024, in which Ambadas
was not shown to be related to the petitioner's father. During the
course of hearing her mother on 03.04.2024 tendered a genealogy
disclosing name of Ambadas Baburao Chavan as related to the
petitioner's father and grandfather. The third genealogy was
secured from the grandfather of the petitioner Manohar on
06.04.2024 in order to clarify the discrepancies in the earlier
genealogies. The last genealogy given by the petitioner's
grandfather puts an end to the controversy as to whether
Ambadas is related to them or not. Ambadas is shown in it.
7. Earlier genealogies of petitioner's mother can be said to be
incomplete. It is recorded by the Committee that Aurna in her
statement recorded on 29.02.2024 had stated that Kisanrao,
great grandfather of the petitioner had no real brother. We have
gone through the statement of Aruna. She had stated that she
was not knowing whether there was any real brother or sister to
Kisanrao. In the next para she had stated that her father-in-law
4 wp 8389.24
Manohar was not having any brother or sister. The finding
recorded by the Committee is perverse for entertaining dobut
about relationship of Ambadas with the petitioner or his branch.
8. The school record of Baburao and Sharda indicating caste
as Hindu Thakar was found to be tampered with. Hindu is not a
caste, but religion. The word Maratha was found to be scored out
in the record of both persons. Thakar and Thakur are appearing
in the same entry No. 44 of the Constitutional order. Therefore,
even Thakar cannot be regarded as an adverse entry. We are of
the considered view that there is no contrary record in the
matter.
9. The Committee has proposed reverification of validity of
petitioner's father Yogesh. The petitioner is 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. We
find that the petitioner is entitled to receive conditional validity.
We, therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
a. The writ petition is partly allowed.
b. Impugned order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the respondent
No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
c. The respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee shall
5 wp 8389.24
immediately issue certificate of validity to the petitioner of
'Thakur' (Scheduled Tribe) in prescribed Proforma G without
incorporating any conditions.
d. Certificate of validity would be subject to the outcome of
reverification of Yogesh Thakur undertaken by the Committee.
e. Petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Aug. 24
