Bombay High Court
Sayali Shivaji Sable vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 8 October, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge, M.M. Sathaye
2024:BHC-AS:40480-DB
1 16-WP-12023-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12023 OF 2024
Sayali Shivaji Sable
Age - 23 years, Occ. Student
Residing at Kolyachi Wadi, Ismalpur, Tal and
Dist. Ahmadnagar ...Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
(Social Justice Department), Mantralaya,
SNEHA
Mumbai.
NITIN
CHAVAN
2. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
Nashik
NITIN CHAVAN
Date:
2024.10.11
18:42:52 +0530
3. The Competent Authority,
State Common Entrance Test Cell,
Having office at 8th Floor, New Excelsior ...Respondents
Building, A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort,
Mumbai - 400 001
****
Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Sumit Kate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Abhijeet Naik, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
Ms. Kavita Solunkhe, for Respondent No.3/CET Cell.
****
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 08th OCTOBER, 2024
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
Sneha Chavan
2 16-WP-12023-2024.odt
2. The Petitioner Sayli Shivaji Sable and her sibling brother,
Sanket Shivaji Sable, had appeared before the competent Scrutiny
Committee seeking validation of their claim of belonging to Koli
Mahadev Scheduled Tribe category. Their claims were turned down by
the impugned order of the Committee, dated 22.09.2022. Sanket
approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 12415 of 2022. By an order
delivered on 18.11.2022, the Writ Petition was disposed off by quashing
and setting aside the judgment of the Committee qua Sanket Shivaji
Sable and the Committee was directed to issue a validity certificate to
Sanket. It was further recorded that if the validity certificate is subjected
to a review or re-opening of proceedings, the decision in such
proceedings would bind Sanket.
3. In Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur1, this Court has laid down the law that
when it comes to blood relatives from the paternal side and more so in
the case of siblings, the siblings cannot hold two different castes or tribe
certificate.
4. In Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and
1 2010(6) Mh.L.J.401
Sneha Chavan
3 16-WP-12023-2024.odt
others2, this Court has concluded that if the validity certificate on which
the claim of the Petitioner is founded, is subjected to reopening of
Scrutiny and results in invalidation, the consequences suffered by such
candidate would befall upon the Petitioner. For clarity, we are
reproducing paragraph numbers 2 to 4 & 8, here under:-
2. On the earlier occasion, we found that though the
petitioner produced credible evidence in the form of
certificates of validity issued to her real uncle Govind
Sambhaji Isankar and which concededly has been issued
way back on 5th December 2005 and another certificate of
validity dated 5th September 2006 to his cousin uncle
Ramdas Sambhaji Isankar, the Committee finds that the
certificate of validity issued to the real uncle Govind, is not
free from suspicion. It is held by the Committee in the
impugned order that a notice to show cause has been
issued to said Govind on 14th September 2017, calling
upon him to show cause as to why this certificate of
validity should not be cancelled as its issuance is vitiated
by fraud or suppression of material facts by the said
Govind.
3 On such a finding being rendered by the Committee, we
called upon the learned AGP on the earlier two occasions
to produce the record. We also indicated to the learned
AGP as to how the certificate of validity is denied to the
petitioner though she has established her relationship with
the said Govind and only on the ground that a show cause
notice has been issued, but no proceedings in furtherance
thereof came to be initiated till date. The learned AGP
sought time to file an affidavit .Now, the Joint
Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken on
record. The said affidavit admits that the certificate of
validity has been issued to her real uncle and cousin uncle
of the petitioner. The affidavit admits that the petitioner
2 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363
Sneha Chavan
4 16-WP-12023-2024.odt
relies heavily on these two documents, but clarifies that
there is a suppression detected from the original record of
the certificate holder and that is how a show cause notice
has been issued to Govind. The show cause notice could
not be taken to its logical end on account of the huge
pendency of cases before this Committee. In all, 7,000
matters were pending on the date when this Joint
Commissioner took charge and he has reduced the
pendency by 2500 cases being decided. In the
circumstances, he says that appropriate orders and
directions be issued by this Court.
4 We are not impressed by this explanation and the
justification not to proceed against a person who has
perpetrated a fraud on the public. If it is a serious
allegation and which is termed as fraud, then, it should
have been taken to its logical end. Mere issuance of a show
cause notice in the present case would not suffice for there
are two certificates of validity relied upon. The only reason
assigned in the impugned order to discard them, cannot be
sustained. The justification in the above affidavit is also not
enough to straightaway discard the certificates of validity
issued in the family. It is conceded that other reasons
assigned in the impugned order cannot be supported in
law.
8. This order does not prevent the Committee from
proceeding against Govind in accordance with law and
needless to further clarify that in the event Govind's claim
is invalidated, all the consequences shall be taken by the
petitioner as well."
5. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has delivered a
judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others 3, wherein the law on this count has
been settled in paragraph Nos. 21, 22 and 23.
3 AIR 2023 SC 1647
Sneha Chavan
5 16-WP-12023-2024.odt
6. When this Court delivered an order in Sanket Shivaji Sable
(supra), an earlier order in favour of one Prathamesh, who is said to be
the paternal blood relative of Sanket, was cited before this Court which
led to the order dated 15.01.2021. This order was also considered by this
Court while delivering the order in Sanket (supra).
7. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is partly allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a). The impugned order of the Committee dated
22.09.2022, stands quashed and set aside qua the present Petitioner Sayli
Shivaji Sable. The Committee shall issue the Koli Mahadev Scheduled
Tribe validity certificate to the Petitioner, within 10 days from today.
The Respondent CET Cell, which is before us, shall note this judgment
dictated in the open Court and shall accordingly, proceed on the premises
that the present Petitioner's claim has been validated.
8. Needless to state, the law laid down in Shweta Balaji
Isankar (supra), shall be applicable to the case of Sayali, as the case may
be.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Sneha Chavan
