Bombay High Court
Balaji Venkat Govindwar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 2 January, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:44-DB
*1* 12wp14162o21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14162 OF 2021
Balaji s/o Venkat Govindwar,
Age : 28 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o Savarmal, Tq.Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
At present Wadgaon, Tq.Lanja,
Dist.Ratnagiri.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Deputy Director (Research) and
Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee,
Near Saint Lawrence High School,
Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Post Master Ratnagiri
Head Office, MH SH 4, Rajiwada
Ratnagiri, District Ratnagiri.
4. Department of Posts India
Office of Inspector of Posts Offices,
Lanja Sub Division, Lanja
District Ratnagiri.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Ms.Preeti D. Rane, Advocate for the petitioner (through VC).
Shri M.K. Goyanka, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2/State.
Shri Kulkarni Bhushan B., Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
...
*2* 12wp14162o21
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
&
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 02nd January, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At
the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the
stage of admission.
2. The petitioner is questioning the sustainability of the
judgment and order dated 16.11.2021 passed by respondent No.2
Scrutiny Committee refusing to validate his 'Mannervarlu',
Scheduled Tribe certificate.
3. It is being pointed out that the petitioner's real
brother Sanjay Venkat Govindwar possesses a certificate of
validity issued by the predecessor of respondent No.2 Scrutiny
Committee by following due process of law. The vigilance
enquiry was conducted and by a reasoned order, he was held
entitled to have a certificate of validity.
4. True it is that the Scrutiny Committee perceives
about the petitioner's brother Sanjay having actively concealed
*3* 12wp14162o21
contrary record and the Committee has expressed about
reconsideration of the validity granted to him. We are informed,
across the bar, that the enquiry into that aspect is going on.
Obviously, it would not be appropriate for this Court to comment
on sustainability of the perception of the Scrutiny Committee
about Sanjay having played fraud. Incidentally, he is not before
us and any observation made in that respect could cause some
harm to him. Precisely for this reason, we refuse to undertake
any scrutiny about the circumstances which form the basis for
the Committee to attribute fraud on the part of Sanjay.
5. Admittedly, this High Court has held number of
blood relatives of the petitioner entitled to have certificates of
validity, albeit with a rider that those would be subject to the
final outcome of the matters to be decided by the Committee in
respect of the validity holder. Sanjay's daughter Shradha was
found entitled to have a certificate of validity by the order passed
by this Court in Writ Petition No.8121/2020 decided on
16.12.2020. Even prior thereto, Preeti Ramesh Govindwar,
Santosh Vitthal Govindwar and Vaishnavi Vyankatrao
Govindwar have also been held entitled to have certificates of
*4* 12wp14162o21
validity by the orders passed by this Court.
6. In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot be
treated differently and would be entitled to have a certificate of
validity with a similar rider.
7. The Writ Petition is allowed partly. The impugned
order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 Scrutiny
Committee shall immediately issue a certificate of validity to the
petitioner of 'Mannervarlu', Scheduled Tribe. It shall be subject
to final outcome of the matters of validity holders, which the
Committee has decided to reopen. The petitioner shall not be
entitled to claim equities and would be bound by the undertaking
furnished by him to this Court.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
