Bombay High Court
Priyanka Raju Mamilwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 3 September, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:20645-DB
1 wp 9966.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9966 OF 2018
Priyanka Raju Mamilwad .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri A. R. Kale, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Shri S. G. Karlekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 03 SEPTEMBER, 2024.
FINAL ORDER :
. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the
respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee in the proceeding U/Sec. 7
of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001, refusing to validate
her 'Koli Malhar' Scheduled Tribe certificate.
2. We have heard both the sides.
3. It transpires that the petitioner has been relying upon the
validity of one Gajanan Maroti Mamilwad. Even the original file
of the petitioner made available to us apparently contains a copy
of the affidavit purportedly filed by him substantiating the
petitioner's claim and expressly disclosing the relationship
between the two. However, the learned Addl. G. P. would submit
2 wp 9966.18
that though the Committee has not entertained any doubt in
respect of the relationship between the petitioner and Gajanan
inter se, the original file of Gajanan contains a communication
received from him dated 28 September 2018 expressly stating
that the petitioner is not related to him. He would submit that in
view of such stand being taken by the validity holder, there being
no scrutiny about the relationship between the petitioner and
Gajanan, the matter may be remanded, as otherwise there is no
sufficient and cogent evidence to substantiate her claim of
belonging to Koli Malhar (Scheduled Tribe) and even the affinity
test has gone against her.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner does not oppose the
request for remand.
5. Since the parties are unanimous, we can easily relegate the
petitioner to the Committee for a fresh enquiry. However, it
would be apposite to note the manner in which the enquiry has
been conducted.
6. Admittedly, the petitioner furnished a genealogy in support
of her claim and sought to rely upon validity possessed by
Gajanan. Even a copy of his affidavit purportedly filed by him is
available to be seen in her original file with the Committee.
However, conspicuously the vigilance enquiry report does not
demonstrate about any enquiry having been conducted by the
vigilance officer to verify and ascertain if really there is any blood
3 wp 9966.18
relationship between the petitioner and Gajanan. Even the
Committee has proceeded under the assumption that indeed
there is such blood relationship. In our considered view the very
purpose of conducting vigilance enquiry in such circumstance
should be aimed at verifying existence of any blood relationship
between a claimant and the validity holder/s being relied upon by
him. If the original file of the petitioner contains affidavit of
Gajanan, the enquiry officer ought to have ascertained if really
there is any such relationship in existence atleast by approaching
Gajanan and recording his statement. This having not been
done, the matter has landed to the stage, we are entertaining it,
wherein, though the Committee is not entertaining any doubt
about the relationship between Gajanan and the petitioner, he
has purportedly communicated to the Committee disputing the
relationship.
7. There is one more aspect to be noted. Gajanan seems to
have though it fit to address communication dated 28 September
2018 purportedly after the committee pursuant to the
observations made in the order under challenge sought to
undertake reverification of validity issued to him and issued him
a notice dated 03 September 2018.
8. Be that as it may, since it is a matter of social status, it
would be appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the
Scrutiny Committee for undertaking a fresh enquiry precisely to
examine if there is any blood relationship between the petitioner
4 wp 9966.18
and Gajanan, by extending an opportunity to her to substantiate
it.
9. The writ petition is allowed partly. The impugned
judgment and order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the respondent
No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter
is remanded back to the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee for
decision afresh in the light of observations made herein above.
The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 09
September 2024 and the Committee shall thereafter decide the
claim afresh, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within
a period of five (05) weeks from the date of appearance.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
bsb/Sept. 24
