Bombay High Court
Umesh Ramkishan Gurle vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 January, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:3092-DB
1282.25wp etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1282 OF 2025
Umesh Ramkishan Gurle,
Age: 29 years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Nandkheda, Tq. Parbhani,
District Parbhani ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee,
Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar ....RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1306 OF 2025
Ramkishan Baliram Gurle,
Age: 70 years, Occu. Retired,
R/o. Nandkheda, Tq. Parbhani,
District Parbhani ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
1282.25wp etc
(2)
3. The Dean,
Swami Ramanand Tirth Government
Medical College and Hospital,
Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai,
Dist. Beed ....RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2025
Mahesh Ramkishan Gurle,
Age: 32 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Nandkheda, Tq. Parbhani,
District Parbhani ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee,
Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Through its Dy. Director (R),
Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
3. The Divisional Controllar,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation,
Buldhana Division, Buldhana,
Dist. Buldhana ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute, Advocate for petitioners in all
petitions
Ms P. J. Bharad, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in all petitions
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 27th January, 2025
1282.25wp etc
(3)
JUDGMENT (Per : Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)
1. Heard the respective sides.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3. The petitioners in all these three petitions, who are father
and two sons, have raised a challenge to the common order of
invalidation dated 22/01/2025, passed by respondent No.2/scrutiny
committee invalidating their claims for 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe
and directing initiation of action under Sections 10 and 12 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). Since the
impugned order is a common order the writ petitions are being decided
together.
4. By the impugned order, the committee has invalidated the
tribe claims of these petitioners by observing that they failed to
establish their claims on the basis of documentary evidence, as well as
for failure to prove affinity with 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe. The
1282.25wp etc
committee has referred to various documents submitted by the
petitioners, however, it discarded the documents by referring to the
issue of area restriction and observing that the family members of the
petitioners were not residents of the scheduled area. About affinity, the
committee has generally observed that the cultural traits and customs
as narrated by the petitioners did not match with the 'Mannervarlu'
tribe.
5. Assailing the impugned order, Advocate Mr Vibhute,
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order
is grossly illegal since the committee has erred in ignoring the validity
certificate in favour of third son of petitioner Ramkishan, namely,
Santosh Ramkishan Gurle, who is brother of petitioners Umesh and
Mahesh. By placing reliance upon validity certificate in favour of
Santosh, it is vehemently argued that the committee ignored the
validity certificate by adopting a perverse approach, without
considering the settled legal position. He submitted that, on the basis
of validity in favour of Santosh, the claims of the petitioners ought to
have been validated.
6. Learned A.G.P. Ms Bharad for the respondents/State
authorities opposed the petitions and submitted that the validity in
1282.25wp etc
favour of Santosh cannot be made the sole basis to validate the
petitioners' claims, since a few documents which are mentioned in the
impugned order were not brought before the committee during the
process of scrutiny of the claim of Santosh. It is submitted that the
documents in favour of the other relatives of the petitioners showing
the caste as 'Munnarwar', 'Kolam', 'Manner', etc. were not brought
before the committee, and therefore, the committee has rightly
discarded the validity in favour of Santosh.
7. In order to have objective scrutiny of the claims of the
petitioners, we have called upon the respondents to produce the
original file of Santosh Ramkishan Gurle from the office of scrutiny
committee. The same is produced.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers including original file of Santosh Ramkishan Gurle.
9. It is to be noted that, there is no dispute about the fact that
petitioners Umesh, Mahesh and Santosh are sons of Ramkishan
Baliram Gurle. The genealogy showing the relationship was filed
before the scrutiny committee and there is no dispute. It is also not
disputed that a validity certificate dated 15/10/2007 was issued in
favour of Santosh Ramkishan Gurle by the Pune scrutiny committee.
1282.25wp etc
10. While considering the rival claims, the settled position of
law as laid down in the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR
2023 Supreme Court 1657] has to be kept in mind. As has been held,
in the wake of validity certificate in favour of a blood relative, the
scope of enquiry has to be mainly whether it was granted after
following due procedure and by a reasoned order. On perusal of
original record of the case of Santosh, it is clear that, a detailed
vigilance enquiry was conducted and on the basis of report of vigilance
enquiry and other documents filed by him, the committee passed a
reasoned order dated 15/10/2007 validating his tribe claim. It is
pertinent to note that the validity certificate dated 15/10/2007 in favour
of Santosh is in force. In view of this, the petitioners, being blood
relatives of Santosh, are entitled to take benefit of the validity.
11. The contentions of the respondents that, a few documents
were not produced before the committee while deciding the claim of
Santosh, cannot be given weightage in view of the authoritative
pronouncement in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti (supra). It has to be noted that the validity in
1282.25wp etc
favour of Santosh is in force and only because of possibility of
reopening of matter of Santosh, the petitioners cannot be deprived of
its benefit at this stage.
12. It has also to be noted that, in view of validity in favour of
one brother, invalidating claims of other brothers and father, will create
an anomalous situation. In view of the position of law as settled in the
matters of Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others; [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401] and
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra),
we are of the considered view that the petitioners are also entitled to
validity, which has to be co-terminus with the validity in favour of
Santosh Ramkishan Gurle. Hence, we pass following order :
(i) The writ petitioners are partly allowed. The impugned
order dated 22.01.2025 is quashed and set aside. The
respondent/Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity
certificates to the petitioners as belonging to 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without adding
anything. The validities shall be subject to the final outcome of
the matter which the Committee has decided to re-open.
1282.25wp etc
(ii) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
13. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
