Bombay High Court
Sagar Krishna Totawar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 3 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:6669-DB
15401.23wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.15401 OF 2023
Sagar s/o Krishna Totawar,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Education,
R/o Flat No. 308, Raj Apartment F,
Latur Phata Ambedkar Chowk, Nanded,
Tq. & Dist. Nanded ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Head Office at Aurangabad,
through its Member Secretary
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Deglur, Tq. Deglur,
Dist. Nanded
4. The Directorate of Vocational
Education & Training,
Maharashtra State,
Mumbai - 400001 ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Umakant P. Giri, Advocate for petitioner
Mr Amar V. Lavte, A.G.P. for respondents/State
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 3rd March, 2025
15401.23wp
(2)
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 11/12/2023, passed by respondent No.2/scrutiny committee
invalidating his claim for 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe in a
proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, and
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). By the impugned order,
the committee has concluded that the petitioner has failed to establish
his claim on the basis of the documentary evidence as well as on
account of failure to prove affinity with 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe.
4. Learned advocate Mr Umakant Giri for the petitioner
vehemently submitted that the committee has adopted an erroneous
approach in appreciating the documentary evidence. He has submitted
that in view of the validity of petitioner's father Krushna Naganna
15401.23wp
Totawar and validity certificates of petitioner's other close relatives,
namely, Sunil Bhumanna Totawar, Sanjay Narayan Totawar, the
petitioner's clam ought to have been validated. It is submitted that the
reasons stated by the committee for discarding the validity certificate
demonstrates perverse approach. It is submitted that, only on the
strength of the documents, the petitioner's claim ought to have been
validated.
5. Per contra, advocate Mr Amar Lavte, learned A.G.P. for
respondents opposed the petition and justified the impugned order. He
has submitted that the petitioner was required to establish his claim
independently and in view of the confusion in the document of
Naganna Bhumanna Totawar, dated 18/07/1954, complete reliance
cannot be placed on validity of Krushna Naganna Totawar.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
7. We have perused the original record in the matter of
Krushna, father of the petitioner and cousin bother Sanjay Narayan
Totawar.
8. Relationship of petitioner with validity holders i.e.
Krushna Naganna Totawar, being father and other cousin brothers,
15401.23wp
namely, Sanjay Narayan Totawar and Sunil Bhumanna Totawar is not
disputed. Record reveals that the claim of Sunil was validated by the
committee and on that basis, claims of Sanjay and Krushna were
validated. A careful perusal of the impugned order shows that
reference made of the school record dated 18/07/1954 relating to
Naganna Totawar is erroneous as the documents reveals that it was
related to Narayan Naganna Totawar. Only because of this confusion
about the names, it appears that the committee has discarded the
validity of the petitioner.
9. Perusal of the original record of Krushna Naganna
Totawar reveals that his claim was validated by a reasoned order dated
06/08/2008 and on the basis of vigilance cell enquiry of Sanjay
Narayan Totawar.
10. In view of the fact that the claim of Krushna and Sanjay
was validated by following the due procedure, the petitioner is entitled
to derive benefit of these validities.
11. In view of the settled position of law in the matter of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657], after
15401.23wp
considering the validities of petitioner's father and close blood
relatives, the petitioner's claim also needs to be allowed. Hence, we
pass the following order :-
(a) The writ petition is allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 11/12/2023, 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
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
(d) The petitioner shall not claim any equities.
12. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
