Bombay High Court
Pooja Sitaram Sapkal And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:513-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
919 WRIT PETITION NO.4364 OF 2022
1 Pooja d/o Sitaram Sapkal,
Age 20 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o Shivajinagar, Sillod,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.
2 Sanjeevani d/o Sitaram Sapkal,
Age 27 yrs., Occ. Education,
R/o At & Post Sapkalwadi,
Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad.
... Petitioners
... Versus ...
1 The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
Through its Member Secretary,
Aurangabad.
3 The Commissioner & Competent Authority,
Commissionerate of Common Entrance Test Cell,
Government of Maharashtra,
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A.K. Naik Marg, Fort, Mumbai - 32.
(Deleted vide order dated 19.10.2023.)
... Respondents
...
2 WP_4364_2022_Jd
Mr. O.B. Boinwad, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. N.S. Tekale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2024
JUDGMENT :
(PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.)
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocates
for the parties finally, by consent.
2 The petitioners claim belonging to "Koli Malhar" Scheduled Tribe
has been invalidated by respondent No.2 - Committee by Judgment and
order dated 04.02.2022, which has given rise to the present petition, wherein
the petitioners invoked the constitutional powers of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.
3 The petitioners have contended that in fact respondent No.2 -
Committee had validated the Tribe claim of the father of the petitioners on
29.12.2009, so also many blood relatives as well as distant relatives from the
paternal side have been granted validity certificate, still the claim of the
present petitioners has been rejected. The petitioners also contend that the
3 WP_4364_2022_Jd
Tribe claim of their grandfather Daulatrao Yesuba Sapkal was granted on
27.10.1992, however, Tribe claim of Prakash Daulatrao Sapkal was
invalidated by Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. It was challenged before this
Court in writ petition which came to be allowed on 22.04.1997. The two
cousins Pratik and Rutuja had also received Tribe Validity Certificate under
the orders of this Court on 21.08.2019, another cousin Nilesh Sapkal also
received the validity under the order of this Court on 12.02.2021. Under
these circumstances, petitioners have claimed that the impugned order
passed by respondent No.2 is illegal and deserves to be set aside.
4 Heard learned Advocate Mr. O.B. Boinwad for the petitioners and
learned AGP Mr. N.S. Tekale for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5 The learned Advocate for the petitioners have taken us through
the documents and he also points out the recent two orders in Writ Petition
No.11300 of 2023 dated 13.09.2023 and Writ Petition No.10547 of 2023 on
14.09.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench. In respect of those petitioners
he submits that they appeared in the genealogy that has been given on page
No.30.
6 Though the learned AGP would support strongly the impugned
order stating that reasoned order has been given, but he fairly concedes that
4 WP_4364_2022_Jd
several validity certificates have been given in the blood relations by this
Court.
7 Taking into consideration the order passed by the coordinate
Bench, we adopt the same reasons. The liberty has been given to the
Scrutiny Committee that in case it seeks review of the order passed by this
Court on 22.04.1997 in Writ Petition No.1665 of 1996, then it can take
appropriate steps against the petitioners. As aforesaid, we follow the same
course which was adopted by the earlier Benches. Hence, the following
order.
ORDER
1 The writ petition is partly allowed.
2 The impugned order is quashed and set aside.
3 The Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificates
to the petitioners as belonging to "Koli Malhar" Scheduled Tribe, which shall
be subject to the decision to be taken by the Committee in the reopened
matters.
4 The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
5 WP_4364_2022_Jd
5 The liberty is granted to the Committee to take steps against the
petitioners in case it seeks review of the order passed by this Court on
22.04.1997 in Writ Petition No.1665 of 1996.
6 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )
agd
