Bombay High Court
Pranav Anil Lolapod vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 27 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:19660-DB
1 WP / 9234 / 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9234 OF 2024
Pranav S/o Anil Lolapod,
Age : 19 years, Occu : Student,
R/o. At. Post Saykheda,
Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat
Headquarter Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand,
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Through its Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat
AGP for the respondent - State : Mrs. P.J. Bharad
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 27 AUGUST 2024
ORAL ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Issue notice for final disposal. AGP waives service for the
respondents.
2. Heard both the sides finally, at the stage of admission
considering the urgency.
2 WP / 9234 / 2024
3. The petitioner is challenging the order of invalidation,
whereby the respondent - committee has confiscated and cancelled
his 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe certificate.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner takes us through the
genealogy furnished before the committee on oath by the petitioner
(Exhibit - B). He would point out that one Saybu was the common
ancestor having three sons - Saybu, Shivram and Poshetti. The
petitioner is the great grandson of Poshetti. His cousin Kalpana
Madhavrao has been issued with a certificate of validity. From the
branch of Shivram, Nagesh and Gangaprasad possess certificates of
validity issued pursuant to the order of this Court in writ petition
no. 1241 of 2022 and 1392 of 2022, dated 3 August 2023.
5. He would further point out that the original validity holder is
one Madhav Gangaram who is the great grandson of Saybu. He was
also issued with a certificate of validity pursuant to the order of this
Court in writ petition no. 5211 of 2003, dated 25 November 2004. He
would submit that in the light of the validities issued by this Court, there
being no dispute about the petitioner being related to them by blood,
the petitioner being ready to run the risk of facing the consequences as
contemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017), he may be granted
3 WP / 9234 / 2024
conditional validity even though Madhav Gangaram Lolapod was
granted a clear validity, as was done in the matters of Nagesh Lolapod
and Gangaprasad Lolapod.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner also points out that
the vigilance enquiry conducted in the matter of Gangaprasad was in-
fact a common vigilance enquiry. No independent enquiry was
conducted in respect of petitioner and he was allowed to adopt the
reply of Gangaprasad.
7. Learned AGP opposes the petition. He submits that
though Madhav possesses a clear validity, this Court consciously
directed Nagesh and Gangaprasad to be issued with conditional
validities. The petitioner may not be granted a clear validity.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the impugned judgment and order.
9. The impugned judgment and order itself indicates that the
vigilance enquiry conducted in the matter of Nagesh and Gangaprasad
was allowed to be adopted together with their response, in the
petitioner's matter, obviously because there is no dispute about the
blood relationship inter se.
4 WP / 9234 / 2024
10. It is also a matter of record that Madhav Gangaram
Lolapod is the original validity holder who was issued with a certificate
of validity pursuant to the order of this Court dated 25 November 2004
passed in writ petition no. 5211 of 2003. Even if the committee has
now assigned some reasons to take exception to his validity, with a
perception about he having practised fraud, till the time it is unable to
undertake the process of applying for recall of the judgment and order
in the matter of Madhav Gangaram Lolapod, the petitioner is entitled to
derive the benefit. It would not suffice for the committee to simplicitor
unilaterally conclude about Madhav having practised fraud when this
Court has found him entitled to have a certificate of validity.
11. In the light of above, when there are these many validities
as discussed above, and when the petitioner is ready to run the risk of
facing the consequences as spoken about in the matter Shweta Balaji
Isankar (supra), he deserves to be issued with a certificate of validity.
12. The writ petition is partly allowed.
13. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
14. The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribe
validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe in the prescribed format.
5 WP / 9234 / 2024
15. The validity would be co-terminus with the validity of
Madhav Gangaram Lolapod.
16. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
