Bombay High Court
Arvind Bairam Deshatwad vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 11 January, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:985-DB
(1) wp-10399-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.10399 OF 2023
Arvind S/o Baliram Deshatwad,
Age : 20 years, Occu.: Student,
R/o. At. Post. Ritha, Tq. Bhokar,
Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32,
2. Deputy Director (Research) and
Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee
Kinwat, Headquarter Aurangabad,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad. ..Respondents.
...
Mr. C. R. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. S. Tekale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATED : 11th JANUARY 2024.
ORDER (Per: S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.):
-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of
admission.
2. The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, assailing order dated 13.05.2022 passed by
respondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
(2) wp-10399-2023.odt
Kinwat, thereby rejecting caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to
'Mannervarlu', Scheduled Tribe.
3. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner belongs to the 'Mannervarlu',
Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority had issued caste certificate
in his favour. The claim of the petitioner was referred for verification to
the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee,
which was supported by validity of the blood relative i.e. Pandurang
Vitthal Deshatwad (real uncle), so also some other documents. The
Committee on its own, examined the record in the matter of his uncle's
validity and found that the claim of the cousin uncle of the petitioner
namely Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad was invalidated in the year
1998. By suppressing the said fact he obtained fresh validity. The real
uncle of the petitioner namely Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad has
obtained his validity certificate on 03.06.2011 based on validity granted
to Vishwanath. Accordingly, the Committee invalidated the claim of the
petitioner by discarding evidence in the nature of validity of Pandurang.
Mr. Thorat would submit that the petitioner was not given any
opportunity to furnish his explanation. He would further submit that
so far as validity of the real uncle of the petitioner i.e. Pandurang
Vitthal Deshatwad is concerned, it has been issued after following due
process of law. The report of the vigilance inquiry favors the caste claim
of Pandurang. Therefore, even excluding the validity granted in favour
of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, the validity granted in favour of
the Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad dated 03.06.2011 can be maintained
and caste claim of the petitioner could have been positively considered
being close relative from paternal side of the validity holder.
4. The learned AGP strongly opposes the contention of the
petitioner and justifies the order passed by the Committee.
(3) wp-10399-2023.odt
5. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the respective parties and also perused the original files of petitioner
and record pertaining to the caste validity relied before the Scrutiny
Committee. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in support of his
claim relied upon the caste validity certificate dated 03.06.2011 granted
in favour of his real uncle i.e. Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad. While
examining the claim of the petitioner, the Committee called record in
respect of validity granted in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad
as well as Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad. The Committee found that
the caste claim of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad was invalidated on
02.09.1998 and validity in case of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad is
granted relying upon validity granted in favour of Vishwanath Mahajan
Deshatwad. Apparently, whole basis of validity granted in favour of
Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad i.e. real uncle of the petitioner is based
on fraud exercised by Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, thereby
obtaining validity by suppressing his previous invalidation of the caste
claim. It is true that the order granting validity in favour of Pandurang
Vitthal Deshatwad refers to the report of the vigilance cell and remark
of the Research Officer. However, ultimate grant of validity to
Pandurang is based on validity conferred in favour of Vishwanath
Mahajan Deshatwad.
6. We have perused the papers pertaining to file granting
validity in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad and found that
except validity in case of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, there is no
other document that would support his caste claim.
7. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner
submits that Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad i.e. real uncle of the
petitioner has not made any misrepresentation or adopted any
fraudulent means in the process of obtaining validity and his caste
validity certificate is undisturbed. Therefore, the caste claim of the
(4) wp-10399-2023.odt
petitioner could not have been invalidated. We are afraid to accept the
aforesaid contentions. Although there is no reason to make direct
allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against Pandurang Vitthal
Deshatwad, but whole basis of his validity i.e. caste validity granted in
favour of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad appears to be fraudulent.
While entertaining the caste claim of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad,
the previous invalidation of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad was not
surfaced, therefore, the Committee relied upon the fraudulent validity
obtained by Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad and extended further
benefit to Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad. By accepting the plea raised
on behalf of the petitioner and grant him validity relying upon the
validity of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad would amount to
perpetuating or percolating fraud. This Court cannot look to the
validity granted in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad as valid
evidence.
8. Pertinently, the Supreme Court of India in the matter of
Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and Ors.1 observed in paragraph no.22 that where
the applicant relies upon 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 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 whose validity certificate relied upon by him
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
1 AIR 2023 SC 1657.
(5) wp-10399-2023.odt
granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the concerned Scrutiny
Committee after holding due enquiry and following due procedure. In
the last line, it has been observed that 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 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.
9. The aforesaid observations would clearly depict that when
the caste claim is sought to be justified based on validity granted in
favour of the blood relative, the Committee is empowered to examine
the background of such validity certificate to ascertain whether it has
been issued after following due process of law and undertaking proper
enquiry to form valid basis.
10. In the present case, the Committee had called the record in
respect of the caste validity granted in favour of Pandurang Vitthal
Deshatwad (real uncle) as well as Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad
(cousin uncle) and concluded that Vishwanath's validity was obtained
by exercising fraud. It is trite that the fraud and justice never dwell
together (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). Lord Denning observed 'no
judgment of the court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if
it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything' (Lazarus
Estates Ltd. v. Beasley2). In view of the aforesaid factual and legal
position, the decision of the Committee to discard validity granted in
favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad while considering the claim of
the petitioner (real nephew) cannot be faulted.
2 (1956) 1 All ER 341.
(6) wp-10399-2023.odt
11. During the course of hearing we have repeatedly called
upon the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner to point out any
other material to justify caste claim of the petitioner barring caste
validity granted in favour of Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad however, no
such document or material could be placed into service by petitioner.
Resultantly we do not find any infirmity in impugned order, there is no
merit in the Writ Petition, hence, dismissed.
12. Rule is discharged.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/January-2024
