Bombay High Court
Komal Hanuman Rechode vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 20 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:18827-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 WRIT PETITION NO. 7656 OF 2024
KOMAL HANUMAN RECHODE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute
AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 20 AUGUST 2024
PER COURT [Shailesh P. Brahme, J.] :
Heard both sides finally considering the exigency of the
petitioner.
2. Petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated 12 th
November 2020, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, confiscating
and validating her tribe certificate of 'Koli Mahadev'. Petitioner
relies on validity certificates issued to Sarika, Amol, Achyut and
Sarjerao which are shown in the genealogy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Amol is
the first validity holder who was issued validity certificate after
following due procedure of law. Sarika was issued with validity
2
certificate in pursuance of the order passed by High Court, without
incorporating any condition. He would, therefore, submits that the
validities issued in the family of the petitioner would corroborate
her claim.
4. Learned AGP supports impugned judgment and order.
He would submits that the Committee has rightly discarded the
validity certificate as the validity issued to first validity holder
Amol was based upon manipulated record of Laxman. He would
submit that there is tampering of record in case of Laxman,
Hanuman, Kanta and Ashok. As the validity certificates were
obtained by suppressing material facts those would not enure to
the benefits of the petitioner. It is contended that relationship of
validity holders Amol, Achyut and Sarika with the petitioner is
disputed. It is further informed that Committee has proposed to
file Review Application in respect of order passed by High Court in
the matter of Sarika.
5. We have considered rival submissions of the parties.
Amol is the first validity holder in whose case vigilance enquiry
was conducted. During the course of vigilance enquiry a genealogy
was referred which shows that Appa had six children including
3
Shaburao and Laxman. Petitioner is descendant of Laxman
whereas Amol, Achyut and Sarika are descendants of branch of
Shaburao. As the genealogy was obtained in the vigilance enquiry
and thereafter, Amol was issued with validity certificate by
speaking order, we would find it safe to infer that the petitioner is
related to validity holders Amol, Achyut and Sarika.
6. It further reveals from record that Sarika Sarjerao
Rechode was issued with validity certificate in Writ Petition No.
4150/2002 vide order dated 13 October 2011. No condition was
incorporated while issuing the validity certificate. The validity
certificate is still intact, though the Committee has proposed to file
Review Application against the said order. In that view of matter,
unless and until validity certificates of Amol and Sarika are
revoked, the petitioner cannot be denied same social status.
7. Though learned AGP would point out the manipulation
of school record of certain relatives of the petitioner, the validities
of Achyut, Amol, Sarika and Sarjerao are still intact. The
Committee has already proposed to file Review Application in
respect of Sarika's matter. The petitioner is ready to run risk as per
Shweta Balaji Isankar Versus State of Maharashtra and others,
4
passed by this High Court in Writ Petition No. 5611/2018. We are
of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to validity
certificate subject to outcome of proposed Review Application to
be filed in the matter of Sarika. We find impugned judgment and
order is unsustainable. We, therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
i. Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii. Impugned judgment and order is quashed and set
aside.
iii. The respondent no. 2 / Scrutiny Committee shall
issue validity certificate to the petitioner which shall be
issued subject to outcome of Review Application which is
proposed to be filed in the matter of Sarika.
iv. The petitioner shall not claim any equity.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
Thakur-Chauhan/-
