Bombay High Court
Laxmibai Shankar Totewad vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 7 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:8244-DB
8758.21wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8758 OF 2021
Laxmibai D/o Shankar Totewad,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Aurala, Tq. Naigaon (Kh.),
Dist. Nanded ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Higher and Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Aurangabad
Through its Member Secretary, Aurangabad
3. The Chief Post Master General,
Mumbai, CST, Fort, Mumbai
4. The Post Master General,
CST, Fort, Mumbai
5. The Senior Superintendent
of Post Offices, Mumbai City,
East Division, Dadar, Mumbai ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr S. M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner
Ms S. S. Joshi, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2
Mr S. S. Deve, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 5
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 7th March, 2025
8758.21wp
(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 petitioner takes exception to the order dated 22/07/2021,
passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification
Committee, Aurangabad, invalidating her 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 her claim on the basis of the documentary evidence
as well as on account of failure to prove affinity with 'Mannervarlu'
scheduled tribe.
3. Mr S. M. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the committee has adopted erroneous approach in
considering probative value of the documentary evidence. He submits
8758.21wp
that in view of the validation of claim of petitioner's real brother
Somnath Shankarrao Totewad, by virtue of judgment dated 01/08/2023
in Writ Petition No.9296/2023, the petitioner is also entitled for
validation of her claim. He then submits that the petitioner's two other
real sisters Mahananda Shankarrao Totewad and Shivkanta Shankarrao
Totewad have also got certificates of validity. He, therefore, submits
that in view of the validities in favour of petitioner's real brother and
sisters, the petitioner is also entitled for validation of her claim.
4. Per contra, Ms S. S. Joshi, learned A.G.P. for respondent
Nos.1 and 2 and Mr S. S. Deve, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3
to 5 oppose the petition and justify the impugned order. They submit
that the impugned order is a reasoned order after considering all the
documentary evidence and applying affinity test. By referring to the
affidavit-in-reply dated 12/11/2021, respondent Nos.3 to 5 submit that
in view of invalidation of the petitioner's claim, the petitioner has to
face necessary consequences with respect to service with respondent
Nos.3 to 5.
5. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
8758.21wp
6. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner's real sisters
Mahananda and Shivkanta have got validity certificates. The claim of
petitioner's real brother Somnath was although invalidated, however,
by judgment dated 01/08/2023 in Writ Petition No.9296/2023, this
Court quashed the order of invalidation and he is held entitled for
validation of his tribe claim. Since relationship of the petitioner with
her real sisters Mahananda and Shivkanta and with real brother
Somnath, who are validity holders is not disputed, the petitioner is
entitled for validation of her tribe claim 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], albeit making it co-terminus with the validity
of her real brother Somnath. Hence we pass the following order :-
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 22/07/2021, passed by
respondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside.
(c) Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to issue tribe
validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to the
8758.21wp
'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe in a prescribed format, which
shall be co-terminus with the validity of Somnath Shankarrao
Totewad.
(d) The petitioner shall not claim any equities.
7. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
