Bombay High Court
Isha Chandrakant Kantiwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 9 September, 2024
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2024:BHC-AUG:21460-DB
1 WP / 9881 / 2024+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9881 OF 2024
Isha Chandrakant Kantiwar
Age : 18 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Deloor, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and another .. Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9882 OF 2024
Divya Chandrakant Kantiwar
Age : 23 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Deloor, Tq. Degloor,
Dist. Nanded .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 and another .. Respondents
...
Advocate for petitioners in both WPs : Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar
Addl. GP for the respondent - State : Mr. P.S. Patil
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 09 SEPTEMBER 2024
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP
waives service for the respondents.
2 WP / 9881 / 2024+
2. The petitioners are real sisters inter se and are challenging
similar orders passed by the respondent - scrutiny committee in their
respective matters, thereby refusing to validate their 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe certificates. Though the orders are separate, those
have been passed on the same date and by recording exactly the
same reasons.
3. Considering the urgency, we are disposing of these
petitions finally at the stage of admission with the concurrence of both
the sides, by this common judgment and order.
4. We have heard both the sides.
5. Petitioners are relying upon the certificate of validity of
their real paternal aunt - Shobha Iranna Kantiwar issued on
20-05-2008. Additionally, the committee on its own, has referred to
several other individuals possessing certificates of validities by
observing that they all are related to them by blood. The committee
has refused to extend benefit of these validities by observing that
Shobha was granted validity based on the validity of individuals not
related to her by blood from paternal side. Even Swapnil Sudhakarrao
Kantiwar is similarly alleged to have obtained validity by relying upon
maternal side relatives.
3 WP / 9881 / 2024+
6. Learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that in
the light of exigency, the petitioners are in urgent need of certificates of
validity to secure admission in the current round and even are ready to
face the consequences as contemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017).
7. He would submit that Shobha was granted validity by
following due process of law and even if the committee has decided to
re-visit her validity for the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders,
so long as her validity is not confiscated and cancelled, the petitioners
cannot be deprived of the benefit.
8. Per contra, learned AGP would take us through the original
files of some of the validity holders including that of Shobha. He would
submit that she was granted certificate of validity merely for asking.
There was no documentary proof. Benefit of validities of maternal side
relatives was extended. No reasoned order was passed. Her school
record of 1968 was the only document relied upon by the committee.
In the absence of even iota of material, she was held entitled to have a
certificate of validity and its benefit cannot be extended to the
petitioners.
9. Learned AGP would submit that based on Shobha's
validity, several other individuals / family members could obtain
4 WP / 9881 / 2024+
certificates of validity. No threadbare scrutiny was undertaken in the
matters of any of the earlier validity holders. During the vigilance
enquiry conducted in the present matters, it was revealed that the
favourable record was of recent origin. Contrary record was of earlier
point of time, having greater probative value and the committee has
referred to it in great detail in the impugned order. Some record is
manipulated and even several school entries could be traced wherein
petitioners' blood relatives were described as 'Munurvar'. The oldest
entry of 1953 of petitioners' grandfather - Maroti Santuka Kantewad of
29-12-1953, was turned out to be a forged one. The petitioners cannot
be allowed to take benefit of the fraud perpetrated by their aunt -
Shobha in obtaining validity.
10. We have considered the rival submissions and pursued
the peprs.
11. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that Shobha who
happens to be petitioners' aunt is not the first validity holder. She was
issued with a certificate of validity in the year 2018, whereas Swapnil
Sudhakar Kantiwar referred to by the committee on its own, in the
impugned order, had obtained the validity on 03-10-2015. His original
file has not been made available to us. If Shobha was granted validity
based on the validity of Swapnil, the committee ought to have
undertaken scrutiny of the circumstances in which he was held entitled
5 WP / 9881 / 2024+
to have a certificate of validity. The committee, in an omnibus manner,
has discarded all these validities including that of Shobha and Swapnil
on the ground that those were obtained by concealing contrary record
which the committee has reproduced in the impugned order. It is
apparent that the committee is seeking to take exception to these
validities on the premise of having been obtained allegedly by resorting
to fraud.
12. Needless to state that allegations of fraud are quite serious
and will have to be proved to the hilt, by undertaking due process of
law. When it is apparent that the then committees had issued
certificates of validity by undertaking vigilance enquiry and by passing
a reasoned order, may be cryptic, it cannot be said that they were not
issued with certificates of validity by following due process of law.
13. Incidentally, we could notice that in the matter of Nagmani
Vyankat Kantewad, the then committee had expressly opined that she
could get through the affinity test which would be an additional
circumstance in support of the petitioners.
14. The petitioners cannot be deprived of having the benefit of
those validities which are still intact, by following the principles laid
down in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
6 WP / 9881 / 2024+
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2023
SCC Online SC 326.
15. The writ petitions are allowed partly.
16. The impugned judgments and orders dated 06-09-2024
passed by respondent no. 2 - Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set
aside.
17. Since the petitioners are required to submit the certificates
of validity to secure admission within stipulated period, the respondent
no. 2 - Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity
certificates to the petitioners as belonging to 'Mannervarlu' scheduled
tribe in the prescribed proforma.
18. The validities shall be co-terminus with the validity of the
earlier holders.
19. The petitioners shall not claim equities.
20. Learned AGP and the Law Officer of the Committee who
are present, shall ensure that the decision is immediately
communicated to the Committee.
21. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
