Bombay High Court
Shreyas Arvind Karne Through Guardian ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 6 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:8243-DB
3169.25wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3169 OF 2025
Shreyas s/o Arvind Karne,
Age: 17 years, Occu : Education,
Through natural guardian i.e. Father
Arvind s/o Gangadhar Karne,
Age: 44 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o. Narangal, Tq. Deglur,
Dist. Nanded ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Tribal Development Department,
Through its Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat,
Having its Head Quarter,
at Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar,
Through its Member Secretary ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr S. S. Phatale, Advocate for petitioner
Ms P. J. Bharad, A.G.P. for respondents/State
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 6th March, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
3169.25wp
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 05/02/2025,
passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, invalidating his 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. By the impugned order, the
committee has observed that the petitioner has failed to establish his
claim on the basis of documentary evidence as well as on account of
failure to prove affinity with 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe.
3. Mr S. S. Phatale, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner's claim ought to have been validated on the
basis of documentary evidence. He vehemently submits that the tribe
claim of the petitioner is decided on the basis of vigilance cell enquiry
report of his cousin brother Aditya Madhav Karne and since Aditya
had been issued with the validity certificate pursuant to the order dated
06/12/2021, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.13363/2021, the
petitioner is also entitled for validation of his claim.
3169.25wp
4. Per contra, Ms. P. J. Bharad, learned A.G.P. for
respondents submits that the committee has passed the impugned order
by appreciating the documentary evidence relied upon by the
petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner was required to
establish his claim independently and cannot take benefits of
documents of other persons. She further submits that there are no
documents of pre-independence era establishing the petitioner's claim
and hence, the claim was rightly invalidated.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed a number
of documents in support of his tribe claim. The petitioner was served
with show cause notice dated 13/01/2024 accompanied with vigilance
cell enquiry report dated 07/08/2021 in the matter Aditya Madhav
Karne, who is cousin brother of the petitioner. It is undisputed
position that the committee has decided the petitioner's claim by
considering the vigilance cell enquiry in the matter of Aditya.
Pertinently, after invalidation of their tribe claim, Aditya Madhav
Karne and Shubham Irwant Karne had filed Writ Petition
No.13363/2021 which was decided by judgment dated 06/12/2021
3169.25wp
holding them entitled for validity certificates. Thus, since the
petitioner's tribe claim was decided on the basis of vigilance cell
enquiry in the matter of Aditya and Aditya has been granted validity
certificate, the petitioner is also entitled for validation of his claim,
albeit, co-terminus with the validity of Aditya. It is to be noted that the
judgment in the matter of Aditya Madhav Karne in Writ Petition
No.13363/2021 (supra) observes that father and real paternal uncle of
Aditya are also issued with validity certificates and there are several
validity certificates in their family. The petitioner is entitled to derive
benefit of these validities.
7. Since there is no dispute about relationship of the
petitioner with Aditya, he is 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
Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401]. Hence, we
pass the following order :-
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
3169.25wp
(b) The impugned order dated 05/02/2025, passed by
respondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside.
(c) Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to immediately
issue validity certificates to the petitioner of belonging to the
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe in a prescribed format, which
shall be subject to decision that would be taken in the reopened
proceedings of the validity holders relied upon by the petitioner.
(d) The petitioner shall not claim any equities.
8. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
