Bombay High Court
Supriya Pralhad Bhutte vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 17 January, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:1268-DB
(1) 931 wp 654.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 WRIT PETITION NO. 654 OF 2024
SUPRIYA PRALHAD BHUTTE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. M.L. Paithane h/f. Golegaonkar Madhur A.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.B. Narwade
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 17th January, 2024
P.C. :-
1. The Petitioner's claim of belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled
Tribe has been rejected by the impugned order dated 05.12.2023. The
Petitioner is in employment, working as a Clerk cum Typist with the
Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. We have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for
the respective sides and have perused the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of
Maharashtra & Ors.; AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 1657, especially paragraph
nos.22, 23 and 24 which read as under:
"22. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found
in many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies upon
(2) 931 wp 654.24
caste validity certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously.
such a validity certificate has to be issued either by the Scrutiny
Committee constituted in terms of the directions issued in Kumari
Madhuri Patil's case (AIR 1995 SC 94) or constituted under the
Rules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the
Scrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the certificate is
genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide
whether the applicant has established that the person to whom the
validity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood
relative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish his precise
and exact relationship with the person to whom the validity
certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to be
made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificate
has been granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the
concerned Scrutiny Committee after holding due enquiry and
following due procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee has
issued a validity certificate contemplated in terms of I the decision
in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patill, the examination will be
whether the enquiry contemplated by the said decision has been
held. If the certificate relied upon is issued after coming into force
of the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have to ascertain
whether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed the
procedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or the SC
Rules, as the case may be. For this verification, the Scrutiny
Committee can exercise powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) by
requisitioning the record of the concerned Caste Scrutiny
Committee, which has issued the validity certificate to the blood
relative of the applicant. If the record has been destroyed, the
Scrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due enquiry has been
held on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee
by which caste validity has been granted to the blood relative of
the applicant. If it is established that the validity certificate has
been granted without holding a proper inquiry or without
recording reasons, obviously, the caste scrutiny committee cannot
validate the caste certificate only on the basis of such validity
certificate of the blood relative.
23. In a given case, the Scrutiny Committee may be satisfied
that the caste validity certificate relied upon by the applicant has
been issued after making a lawful enquiry. But if the Scrutiny
Committee is of the view that the applicant has not clearly
(3) 931 wp 654.24
established that the person to whom caste validity certificate
produced on record has been granted is his blood relative, in terms
of sub- rule (2) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee will have to refer the case for conducting an enquiry
through Vigilance Cell. In such a case, the Vigilance Cell can be
directed by the Scrutiny Committee to conduct an enquiry limited
to the relationship claimed by the applicant with the person in
whose favour the caste validity certificate has been issued. If, on
the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny
Committee is satisfied that the person in whose favour caste
validity certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the
applicant and lawful enquiry has been conducted before issuing
the validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue
validity certificate even if the applicant does not satisfy the affinity
test. For example, if it is established that the father or grandfather
of the applicant has been given a caste validity certificate after
holding a lawful enquiry in accordance with law, the Caste
Scrutiny Committee cannot hold that the grandfather or father of
the applicant, as the case may be, belongs to Scheduled Tribe but
the applicant does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Only if the
relationship as pleaded by the applicant is not established, the
other evidence produced by the applicant and the result of the
affinity test can be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny
Committee.
24. As provided in sub-rule (7) of Rule 12 of the ST Rules, the
Vigilance Cell's report is not conclusive. If on the basis of the
report of the Vigilance Cell and other evidence on record, the
Scrutiny Committee comes to a conclusion that the caste claim is
genuine, a caste validity certificate can be issued. Only on the
ground that the report of vigilance cell is in favour of the
applicant, validity certificate cannot be mechanically granted
without application of mind. If the report of the Vigilance Cell is
against the applicant, his caste claim cannot be rejected only on
the basis of the report of the Vigilance Cell without providing a
copy of the report to the applicant and without giving him an
opportunity of being heard on the report. After giving an
opportunity to the applicant to make submissions on the report, the
Scrutiny Committee may reject the caste claim. In a given case,
the Scrutiny Committee can also record a finding that the caste
claim is genuine. It all depends on the facts of each case."
(4) 931 wp 654.24
3. The reason for refusing the validity certificate to the Petitioner is
on account of a conclusion drawn by the committee in the impugned order that
all the validity holders from the paternal side (blood relations), have acquired
such validity certificates from the competent committees, which missed the
aspect of interpolations. The learned AGP has strenuously contended that most
of the blood relatives have different entries in their records like Munnurwad,
Mannurwar and Mannervarlu. According to the committee, all these validity
holders have succeeded in convincing the committees, by suppressing the
interpolations in the records.
4. We are unable to accept the submissions of the Committee, at this
stage. The Petitioner's biological uncle Rameshwar, who is the brother of the
Petitioner's father Prahlad, has been granted validity certificate. The
Petitioner's father Prahlad has three brothers, namely Ananda, Manohar and
Rameshwar. Two daughters of Manohar, namely Mangal and Sheela have been
granted validity certificates. Two daughters and one son of Ananda, namely
Shobha, Vijaymala and Datta have been granted validity certificates. The
Petitioner's grand-father is Datta Mallu and his biological brother is Digambar
Mallu. Digambar had four sons, namely Mallu, Maroti, Dashrath and Balaji.
Sanjay, son of Maroti and Poonam and Dipali, daughters of Dashrath, have
been granted validity certificates by the committee.
(5) 931 wp 654.24
5. In the above backdrop, the relations between the Petitioner and
the above-stated blood relatives has not been disputed. It is the committee's
conclusion that all these nine validity certificates have been acquired by
misleading the committees. We do not find that the committee has initiated
any proceedings for reopening these cases and for scrutinizing the validity
certificates issued to these nine persons on the basis of the purported
interpolations in various statutory documents.
6. In Apporva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others; 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401, this Court has concluded
that when the biological father, biological siblings, biological uncle etc. are
granted validity certificates, a candidate so related to them, cannot be deprived
of a validity certificate.
7. In Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
(Writ Petition No.5611/2018) decided on 27.07.2018, this Court has concluded
in paragraph 2, 3, 4 and 8 wherein it was held that if all the validity
holders,who are the basis of the the Petitioner's claim, are subjected to
reopening of the inquiries and are subsequently declined the validity
certificates, the Petitioner can also be dealt with in the same manner.
(6) 931 wp 654.24
8. In view of the above, considering the law laid down by this Court
in Apporva Vinay Nichale (supra), Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra) and the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti (supra), this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order
dated 05.12.2023 is quashed and set aside.
9. Considering the law laid down in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra),
the Competent Committee shall issue a validity certificate to the Petitioner
within 30 days from today and if any of the blood relatives, as cited by the
Petitioner, suffer reopening of their cases and if their claims are invalidated, the
consequences suffered by such candidates, would befall upon the present
Petitioner who would also suffer similar consequences.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
mub
