Bombay High Court
Santosh Balajirao Marakwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 11 February, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:5301-DB
9540.19wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9540 OF 2019
Santosh S/o Balajirao Marakwar
Age 45 years, occ. Service
R/o PO Pingal Kautha (Mare)
Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad Division,
Plot No.10, Sector E-1,
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Opp. CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of SDO, Bhokar
Dist. Nanded
4. The Head Master,
Jijamata Primary School, Phule Nagar,
Nanded.
5. The Education Officer [P],
Zilla Parishad, Nanded
6. The Chief Officer,
Zilla Parishad,
Nanded. ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr M. A. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3
Mr S. B. Pulkundwar, Advocate for respondent Nos.5 & 6
9540.19wp
(2)
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 11th February, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17/07/2019, passed by
respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad, invalidating petitioner's claim for 'Mannervarlu'
Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.
3. The committee has concluded that the petitioner failed to
establish his claim on the basis of documentary evidence, as well as
failed to prove affinity with 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
9540.19wp
4. The impugned order is a common order in the matter of
petitioner and his son Krushna Santosh Marakwar. The impugned
order was subject matter of scrutiny in Writ Petition No.9062/2019
decided by the Principal Seat of this Court vide judgment dated
22/08/2019, by which, the writ petition was partly allowed directing
the respondent/committee to issue validity certificate in favour of
Krushna Santosh Marakwar.
5. The petitioner has relied upon validity certificate of his
real brother Anandkumar Balaji Marakwar and real sister Pragati
Balaji Marakwar, which are filed on record. On the basis of the
judgment in the matter of Krushna Santosh Marakwar (supra), it is
submitted that the petitioner is entitled for validity on the same lines.
6. Learned A.G.P. Mr V. M. Kagne for respondent Nos.1 to 3
and learned advocate Mr S. B. Pulkundwar for respondent Nos.5 and 6
opposes the petition by submitting that no reliance can be placed on
the validity of Anandkumar Balaji Marakwar and Pragati Balaji
Marakwar since their castes claims were decided without following
due procedure and by suppressing various documents. It is
vehemently submitted that, since the committee has decided to issue
9540.19wp
show cause notice to those validity holders, the petitioner cannot be
derived any benefit of their validities.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
8. It has to be noted that the impugned order was subject
matter of scrutiny in Writ Petition No.9062/2019, which is finally
decided by judgment dated 22/08/2019. Although it has been pointed
out that the committee has decided to initiate proceeding for
cancellation of validity certificate of petitioner's close relatives, the
fact remains that the petitioner's real brother Anandkumar and real
sister Pragati have got validities, which are not disturbed as on today.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that
the petitioner is also entitled for grant of validity on similar lines in
view of the judgment of the Principal Seat dated 22/08/2019, however,
his validity shall be co-terminus with the other validity holders as per
the judgment in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363] (Writ
Petition No.5611/2018). Hence, we pass following order :-
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
9540.19wp
(b) The impugned order dated 17/07/2019, passed by
respondent No.2/scrutiny committee is quashed and set aside to
the extent of petitioner.
(c) Respondent No.2/scrutiny committee is directed to issue
validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to the
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe, which shall be subject to the
final outcome of the matter which the Committee has decided to
re-open.
(d) The petitioner shall not claim any equities.
10. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
