Bombay High Court
Vasundhara Nagnathrao Padalwar ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 24 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:1523-DB
{1}
wp 5725.19 R.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5725 OF 2019
Vasundhara D/o. Nagnathrao Padalwar,
Age : Minor, Occ. Education,
R/o. Eklara, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded,
through father & natural guardian
Nagnath s/o. Maroti Padalwar,
Age 43 years, Occ. Service
R/o. As above. .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Social Justice Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee
Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
through its Member Secretary,
Aurangabad.
.. Respondents.
Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. V.M. Jaware, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 17th January, 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th January, 2024.*
Judgment (per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) :-
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of learned advocate appearing for the parties.
{2}
wp 5725.19 R.odt
2. The petitioner approaches this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India impugning the order dated 20.7.2018 passed by the
Scheduled Tribes Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad
(respondent No.2) thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner
for "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner further seeks writ of
Mandamus against the committee to issue validity certificate in his
favour.
3. Mr. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was pursuing education and she has been granted Tribe
certificate dated 21.6.2013 by the competent authority. Her caste claim
was referred to the Committee for verification. The petitioner supported
her claim by caste validity certificates of her father Nagnath Padalwar
dated 28.7.2011, her paternal aunt Sarojana Maruti Padalwar dated
15.2.2011, cousin uncle Ramrao Narsingh Padalwar dated 24.10.2001
and one more blood relative Veerbhadra Vyankatrao Padalwar dated
29.8.2002.
4. Mr. Vibhute would submit that the proposal of the petitioner
was referred to the Vigilance Cell, who submitted inquiry report dated
6.7.2018. The petitioner was not given opportunity to explain the
adverse remarks in the vigilance report. Consequently, petitioner's claim
has been erroneously invalidated.
5. Mr. V.M. Javare, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.
1 and 2 supported the impugned order. He would submit that validity
certificate of petitioner's father was obtained by suppressing contra
entries in respect of the blood relations. Therefore, no reliance can be
{3}
wp 5725.19 R.odt
placed on such validity certificate. The committee has recorded adequate
reasons while discarding the claim of the petitioner.
6. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions
advanced by respective parties. We have perused the documents
annexed alongwith the writ petition as well as the original file received
from the committee. Apparently, the petitioner placed her reliance on
the Validity Certificate dated 28.7.2011 granted in favour of her father
and validity certificate dated 15.2.2011 granted in favour of aunt
Sarojana Maruti Pawalwar. It is not in dispute that both the validities are
holding the field or subsisting as on date and not subjected to
cancellation or recall. Pertinently, the validity in respeect of paternal
aunt Sarojana was granted after the matter was remanded back to the
committee by this Court vide order dated 9.8.2010 passed in W.P. No.
4223 of 2007. The Committee while appreciating the evidence in form of
validity certificate granted in favour of petitioner's father and aunt
observed that while obtaining the aforesaid validities, the contra entries
were suppressed. Similarly, Mr. B.V. Shivurkar was the disqualified to
hold post of Chairman of the Committee who issued said validity. The
Committee further observed that during the Vigilance Inquiry, many
contra entries have been surfaced.
7. Pertinently there are no specific findings by the Committee
that while obtaining caste validity, the father of the petitioner or her
aunt have indulged into fraudulent activity or they have acted in such a
manner that can be treated as misrepresentation. The Committee merely
observed that the contra entries those are surfaced during the Vigilance
Inquiry in the present case were not brought to the notice of the
Committee, when the claim of the petitioner's father and aunt was under
{4}
wp 5725.19 R.odt
consideration. Such observation itself would not be sufficient to
constitute fraud or mis-representation. However, we would refrain
ourselves from making further observations in this regard. Suffice to say
that we do not find any cogent reason for discarding the caste validity
granted in favour of the petitioner's father and aunt at the threshold. The
committee could have supplied better reasons when it discards the caste
validity granted in favour of the nearest blood relations of the petitioner.
So far as the Vigilance Cell report is concerned, the learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that it was never served upon the petitioner and he
was never offered an opportunity to explain the contra entries or
observations. The learned AGP could not point out from the record that
the petitioner was served with a show cause notice or he was given
sufficient opportunity to explain or put forth his stand as regards the
observations in the Vigilance Report.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find it appropriate to set aside
the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Committee with an
opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation as regards the
report of the Vigilance Cell. We expect that the Committee would take
into consideration the explanation tendered by the petitioner and apply
its mind afresh to the entire material available on record and pass
appropriate order. It is made clear that the observations made herein
above are based on prima facie consideration of the material. The
Committee shall take fresh decision without influenced by the aforesaid
observations. Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
[a] The writ petition is partly allowed;
[b] The impugned order dated 20/7/2018 passed by the Committee is
quashed and set aside;
{5}
wp 5725.19 R.odt
[c] The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 Committee for
fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner after tendering explanation regarding adverse
material surfaced during the Vigilance Inquiry;
[d] The committee shall take fresh decision within a period of one
year from the date of this order.
[e] Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
