Bombay High Court
Ashok Dharmraj Nirde And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 22 October, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:25920-DB
1 wp 10870.24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10870 OF 2024
1. Ashok S/o Dharmraj Nirde,
Age : 28 Years, Occu. : Education,
R/o Kacharwadi, Tq. Dharur,
Dist. Beed.
2. Shamal D/o Dharmraj Nirde,
Age : 31 Years, Occu. : Education,
R/o Kacharwadi, Tq. Dharur,
Dist. Beed. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Chh.
Sambhaji Nagar, through its
Dy. Director (R),
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 17.10.2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 22.10.2024
JUDGMENT (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :
-
. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
2 wp 10870.24
counsel for both the sides finally at the admission stage as there
is exigency in the matter.
2. The petitioners are siblings, whose tribe certificates of 'Koli
Mahadev' scheduled tribe are invalidated by the judgment and
order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny
Committee, which is under challenge in the present petition.
They are relying on validities of their father Dharmraj Manaji
Nirde and cousin uncle Dhyanoba Ramrao Nirde.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Prakash was the first validity holder. Relying upon his validity
petitioners' father Dharmraj was also issued with the validity
certificate. It is submitted that unless their validities are
revoked, the petitioners cannot be deprived of same social status.
It is further submitted that the Committee has not expressed any
doubt about their relationship with first validity holder Prakash.
The petitioners are ready to face consequences in view of the
judgment dated 27 July 2018 in the matter of Shweta Balaji
Isankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in W. P.
No. 5611 of 2018 and, therefore, they are entitled to receive
conditional validity.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader supports the
impugned judgment and order. He has tendered on record
original papers. It is vehemently submitted that there is no
relationship between petitioners' father Dharmraj and Prakash.
He invites our attention to the report of the vigilance officer
3 wp 10870.24
submitted on 30.01.2024. The branch of the petitioners' ancestor
Narayan is not figuring any where. A statement of Prakash was
recorded wherein he disowned affidavit dated 19.06.2023. It is
submitted that in view of the statement of Prakash and the
vigilance report dated 30.01.2024, there is apparent fraud in
attempting to derive benefit of Prakash's validity.
5. The learned A. G. P. further submitted that reply filed by
the petitioners to the vigilance report does not clarify about
statement of Prakash. It is further submitted that after order of
remand in case of petitioners' father, no further vigilance inquiry
was conducted and relying on Prakash's validity Dharmraj was
issued with the validity certificate. The learned A. G. P. would
submit that there is incompatible school record since 1966 and,
therefore, the Committee has rightly rejected the tribe claims.
No validity certificate can be granted to the petitioners, in view
of the fraud played.
6. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. We
have also gone through the original papers submitted by the
respondents especially statement of Prakash Dnyanoba Nirde
recorded on 21.11.2023, genealogy given by Prakash and his
affidavit dated 19.06.2023, which is disowned any relationship
with petitioners.
7. As per the contention of the petitioners, Prakash is the first
validity holder and thereafter petitioners' father was issued with
the validity certificate. Initially petitioners' father was denied
4 wp 10870.24
validity certificate by the Committee. Being aggrieved, he had
preferred Writ Petition No. 6427 of 2007. It was allowed partly
and the matter was remanded to the Committee for deciding it
afresh. It was recorded in para No. 6 of the order of remand that
Prakash was issued with validity certificate when the matter was
pending in the High Court. It was represented by Dharmraj that
Prakash was his cousin.
8. After order of remand, no specific vigilance enquiry was
conducted in the matter of Dharmraj and Committee granted
him validity certificate. We find that no reasons were assigned
while issuing validity to Dharmraj. Relying on validity of
Prakash, Dharmraj was issued with the validity certificate. We
have reservations about the manner in which Dharmraj was
issued with validity certificate.
9. During the course of vigilance inquiry in the present
matter, statement of Prakash was recorded on 21.11.2023. He
specifically stated that petitioners are not his blood relatives and
the signature appearing on affidavit dated 19.06.2023 was not
his. He even disputed the relationship stated in the affidavit. He
gave genealogy before the vigilance officer. It is relevant to refer
to the genealogy :
5 wp 10870.24.odt
Vithoba Nirde
Kondiba
Ganpati Nivrutti Ramrao Janabai Samabai Laxman Kalabai Bhanudas Ravan
Ramnarayan Bhagwan Harikishan Subhash
Ankush Mahadev Balasahb Ramkishan Santosh
Babasaheb
Balbhim
Vijay
Lahu Vashishta Dnyanoba Annapurna Sugriv Sopan
Deepak Sarjerao
Rupchand Prakash Vitthal Yogesh
Ashok Chhaya Amol
Sindhu Atul
Ramesh
6 wp 10870.24
10. The genealogy given by the petitioners in the present
matter is as follows :
Kondiba Nirde
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| |
Narayan Nirde Ramrao Nirde
| |
Manaji Nirde Dnyanoba Nirde
| |
---------------------------------------------------------- |
| | | | |
Dharmaraj Navnath Bandu Shrimant |
Nirde Nirde Nirde Nirde |
(Validity |
holder) |
| |
--------------------------------------------- |
| | | |
Ashok Akshay Shamal |
Nirde Nirde Nirde |
(Candidate) |
|
----------------------------------------------
| |
Prakash Rajesh
Nirde Nirde
Validity holder (Cousin uncle)
11. If we compare genealogies given by Prakash and the
petitioners, then branch of Narayan is absent in the genealogy
given by Prakash. The petitioners are the lineal descendants of
Narayan. Prakash is lineal descendant of Ramrao. In view of
7 wp 10870.24
vigilance report and the documents referred to above, we find
that there is apparently no relationship between petitioners and
Prakash. The affidavits of both the petitioners in Form F
executed on 11.01.2023 disclosing the genealogy as referred to
above is misleading. The petitioners have misled the Committee.
This is apparent fraud.
12. The learned A. G. P. is right in submitting that there is no
relationship between the petitioners and Prakash. Without
following due procedure of law Dharmraj was issued with the
validity certificate. Had due inquiry been conducted in his
matter, he also would not have been issued with the validity
certificate. The petitioners and their father attempted to mislead
the Committee to derive the benefit of validity of Prakash. If the
petitioners are granted validity then that would amount to
perpetuation of the fraud.
13. The Committee rightly discarded the validities. We find
that no satisfactory explanation was given by the petitioners for
the incompatible school record of their blood relatives which was
traced out from 1966. The petitioners do not rely upon any older
record to support their claim.
14. It reveals from revenue record that land Sy. No. 92, 95, 60
and 62 belong to ancestors of validity holder Prakash. In the
7/12 extracts names of those persons are appearing. However,
Narayan who is petitioners' great grandfather is no sharing the
land. Narayan's entire branch is excluded, which creates doubt
8 wp 10870.24
for petitioners' relationship with validity holder Prakash. It is
difficult to accept contention of the petitioner that he is related to
Prakash.
15. We find that the Committee has not committed any
illegality or perversity in rejecting the tribe claims. The
plausible view has been taken which calls for no interference. We
find no merit in the petition. The writ petition is dismissed.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Oct. 24
