Bombay High Court
Samruddhi Sangameshwar Kalyanpad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 28 August, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:19677-DB
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
933 WRIT PETITION NO. 8951 OF 2024
SAMRUDDHI SANGAMESHWAR KALYANPAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Phatale Sagar S.
AGP for Respondents : Mr. V.M. Chate
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 28 AUGUST 2024
PER COURT :
Heard the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order of the
respondent - Scrutiny Committee refusing to validate her
'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe certificate and directing its
confiscation and cancellation.
3. We have heard both the sides finally in view of the
exigency.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's father possesses validity, which was issued by following
due process of law. Besides, even her second degree cousins
Mayuri and Aniket have been held to be entitled to have validity
certificates, pertinently by the orders of this Court. It is also being
pointed out that in fact Mayuri had received certificate of validity
first in point of time in the light of order passed in Writ Petition
No. 10490/2017 (Principal Seat). Based on that, her brother
Aniket was held entitled to have a certificate of validity expressly
mentioning that it would be subject to the final outcome of the
review to be resorted to / undertaken in the matter of Mayuri,
since she was granted a blanket validity by the order of this Court.
5. He would submit that petitioner is ready to have a
certificate of validity subject to the same condition and is ready to
suffer the consequences as contemplated in the matter of Shweta
Balaji Isankar Versus State of Maharashtra and others, in Writ
Petition No. 5611/2018.
6. Learned AGP would endeavour to demonstrate that
petitioner's blood relative by name Govind Babarao Kalyanpad had
suffered invalidation. Still, he could manage to obtain a fresh
certificate and got it validated. However, petitioner's father had
obtained validity without disclosing invalidation of Govind. Even
the petitioner did not disclose it and the Committee has now
decided to undertake reverification of the validities. She cannot be
allowed to derive the benefit of fraud practised by the father.
Learned AGP would also submit that Mayuri and Aniket obtained
the validity certificate by resorting to fraud since Govind's
invalidation was not disclosed by them.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused
the papers. It is a matter of record that the Committee has not
been disputing the petitioner being a blood relative of Aniket from
the paternal side, albeit surprisingly the Committee has not
referred to the validation of Mayuri who happens to be real sister
of Aniket and more importantly, in spite of Aniket having been
granted validity based on her validity. In spite of the fact that
Aniket was directed to be issued with certificate of validity subject
to the final outcome of review to be preferred in the matter of
Mayuri, the impugned order conveniently omits to consider the
validity of Mayuri and even the condition subject to which Aniket
was held entitled to have a validity.
8. Since the validity holders against whom the Committee
is attributing fraud are not before us, we do not intend to
undertake any objective scrutiny of the inference drawn by the
Committee to reach such a conclusion as it would be a matter to
be gone into in an appropriate proceedings.
9. We are of the considered view that there is no dispute
about the blood relationship of Mayuri and Aniket with the
petitioner. Since Mayuri was granted certificate of validity by the
order of this Court, unless and until her validation is recalled by
following due process of law, which in the circumstances could be
by challenging the order of this Court in her matter or seeking a
review of that order, the petitioner is entitled to have a conditional
validity.
10. It is surprising that, in spite of the view of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Sayanna Versus State of Maharashtra and
Others, 2009 (10) SCC 268, some contrary record is resorted to by
the Committee behind petitioner's back. If Govind's invalidation
and subsequent fraud practised by him in obtaining a fresh
certificate and getting it validated, was playing on the mind of
Scrutiny Committee, it would have been appropriate for the
Committee, first of all, to put that circumstance to the petitioner
and to have solicited some reply. Without resorting to this normal
course, for the first time in the impugned order, the Committee has
come out with such improvised stand in the new record taking the
petitioner by surprise and has discarded her claim. This could not
have been the approach of the Committee in such serious matters.
11. Be that as it may, the impugned order in the light of
validity possessed by Mayuri and Aniket, is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
12. Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny
Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificate as
belonging to 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe to the petitioner. This
validity shall be co-terminus with the validity of Mayuri.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
Thakur-Chauhan/-
