Bombay High Court
Rajesh Baburao Metalwad And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 13 February, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:5949-DB
2172.25wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2172 OF 2025
1. Rajesh Baburao Metalwad,
Age: 26 years, Occupation: Student
2. Pooja Baburao Metalwad,
Age: 28 years, Occupation: Student
3. Priyanka Madhavrao Metalwad,
Age: 26 years, Occupation: Student
4. Neha Madhavrao Metalwad,
Age: 22 years, Occupation: Student,
All above R/o: Karna, Taluka Mukhed,
District Nanded ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Kinwat Division, Aurangabad,
Through its Member Secretary ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate h/f Mr Sainath Jayewar, Advocate for
petitioners
Mr S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for respondents/State
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 13th February, 2025
2172.25wp
(2)
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 petitioners have challenged the common order dated
09/12/2024, passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, invalidating their claim for 'Mannervarlu'
Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of the 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 scrutiny committee has observed that the petitioners
have failed to establish their claim on the basis of documentary
evidence as well as on account of failure to prove affinity with
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe. The scrutiny committee has although
considered the validity certificates of close relatives of the petitioners,
however, has discarded the validities by referring to invalidation orders
of some other family members.
2172.25wp
4. Assailing the impugned order, learned advocate Mr A. D.
Sonkawade, h/f advocate Mr Sainath Jayewar for the petitioners has
submitted that the claim of the petitioners ought to have been validated
on the basis of several validities in favour of close blood relatives of
the petitioners. Apart from other documentary evidence, he has relied
upon validity certificates in favour of real uncle of the petitioners
namely Gangadhar Kisanrao Metalwad, cousin brothers, namely, Dilip
Sheshrao Metalwad, Madhav Sheshrao Metalwad and Kirankumar
Uttam Metalwad; and cousin uncle Uttam Ganpati Metalwad amongst
others. It is submitted that, there are so many validities in the family
and the committee has adopted a perverse approach in discarding these
validity certificates. The petitioners have filed on record the vigilance
cell enquiry report and validity certificates in the matters of these
validity holders. He has also relied upon the order dated 12/09/2023 in
Writ Petition No.5202/2022 (Vidya Shivaji Metalwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another) and Writ Petition No.5432/2022 (Vivek
Shivaji Metalwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and another), which are
decided on the basis of validities of Gangadhar, Dilip and others, as
referred above.
5. Advocate Mr S. V. Hange, learned A.G.P. for respondents
has opposed the petition and justified the impugned order. He has
2172.25wp
submitted that in view of invalidation of claim of other relatives,
petitioners cannot rely conclusively on the other validity holders. He
has submitted that the petitioners are required to prove their claims
independently.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
7. Amongst other documents, the petitioners have relied
upon validity certificates in favour of Gangadhar Kisanrao Metalwad,
Dilip Sheshrao Metalwad, Madhav Sheshrao Metalwad, Kirankumar
Uttam Metalwad and Uttam Ganpati Metalwad, as referred above.
Relationship of these persons with the petitioners is not disputed as can
be seen from the vigilance cell enquiry report and the impugned order.
Considering the validity certificates in favour of these persons, this
Court has decided Writ Petition Nos.5202/2022 and 5432/2022
(supra), granting conditional validity in favour of the petitioners
therein. Since there is no dispute about relationship of the petitioners
with validity holders, they are entitled to derive benefits in view of the
settled position of law as laid down in the matters of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657] and
2172.25wp
Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401].
8. Although respondents have raised objection about the
validities already granted to the family of the petitioners, in view of
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), the petitioners are entitled for grant of validity
certificate, subject to outcome of validities which the committee may
reopen. Hence, we pass the following order :-
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 09/12/2024, passed by
respondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside to
the extent of the petitioners.
(c) Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to issue
validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to the
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe in the prescribed format, which
shall be subject to outcome of validities which the committee
has decided to reopen.
(d) The petitioners shall not claim any equities.
9. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
