Bombay High Court
Sandip Kaduba Dandge vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:7876-DB
14675.21wp
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. OF 14675 OF 2021
Sandip s/o Kaduba Dandge,
Age: 32 years, Occu: Service
(Laboratory Attendant),
R/o. : At post Rajur,
Taluka Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2) The Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Through its Dy. Director (Research),
Aurangabad
3) The Director of Forensic Science
Laboratories, Home Department,
Maharashtra State, Vidyanagari,
Hans Bhurge Marg, Santacruz (east),
Mumbai 400 098
....
Mr A. S. Bayas, Advocate h/f Mr S. R. Dheple, Advocate for petitioner
Mr S. R. Wakale, A.G.P. for respondents
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10th March, 2025
14675.21wp
(2)
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard
the parties for final hearing.
3. The petitioner takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 14/12/2021, passed by respondent No.2/scrutiny committee
invalidating the petitioner's claim for 'Koli Malhar' 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 observed 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 'Koli Malhar' scheduled tribe.
4. Mr A. S. Bayas, learned counsel holding for learned
counsel Mr Dheple for the petitioner vehemently submits that the
scrutiny committee has adopted an erroneous approach in discarding
ample documentary evidence and the validity certificates in favour of
14675.21wp
close blood relatives of the petitioner. He submits that while dealing
with the validity certificates relied upon by the petitioner, the
committee has wrongly referred to some documents of other persons
who are not from the family of the petitioner. He vehemently submits
that, instead of giving due weightage to the validity holders of
petitioner's cousin brother Anil Kashinath Dandge, the committee has
unnecessarily given importance to invalidation of claim of Shaligram
Balaji Dandge and Kashinath Vithoba Dandge who are not related to
the petitioner. He submits that invalidation of these two persons was
never confronted to the petitioner during vigilance cell enquiry and as
such, the petitioner had no opportunity to deny the relations with these
persons.
5. Per contra, Mr S. R. Wakale, learned A.G.P for
respondents opposes the petition and justifies the impugned order. He
submits that the committee has rightly discarded the validity certificate
of Anil Kashinath Dandge. He submits that the petitioner was required
to establish his claim independently and reliance cannot be placed on
the validity of Anil Kashinath Dandge since the same was granted by
the committee comprising Mr V. S. Patil as one of the members who
had tainted record.
14675.21wp
6. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the
papers.
7. It has to be noted that amongst the other documents, the
petitioner has relied upon the validity of Anil Kashinath Dandge, who
is his paternal cousin brother. Claim of Anil was validated by order
dated 26/06/2008 by a reasoned order and on the basis of the vigilance
cell enquiry in his case. It is pertinent to note that the order in the
matter of Anil Kashinath Dandge was by a committee without
comprising of Mr V. S. Patil as a Member. As such, although validity
certificate may have been signed by Mr V. S. Patil who was allegedly
involving in various irregularities in deciding the caste claims, the
validity of Anil which was granted by following the due procedure,
cannot be discarded.
8. It has also to be seen that while discarding the validity
certificate of petitioner's close relatives, the committee has referred to
invalidation of Shaligram Balaji Dandge and Kashinath Vithoba
Dandge, referring these two persons as cousins of petitioner. It is
pertinent to note that vigilance cell enquiry in the matter of petitioner
does not refer to invalidation of claims of these two persons. Thus, the
petitioner was never confronted with invalidation of the claim of these
14675.21wp
two persons and the same could not have been made the basis to
decide the petitioner's claim. The petitioner is now disputing any
relationship with them and there is nothing to disprove this stand. This
demonstrates perverse approach on the part of the scrutiny committee.
9. Relationship of the petitioner with Anil is not disputed as
reflected in the genealogy and vigilance cell enquiry of the petitioner.
In view of the validation of the claim of Anil, the petitioner 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]. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to run the risk of
facing the consequences as contemplated in the matter of Shweta
Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, [2018
SCC OnLine Bom 10363] (Writ Petition No.5611/2018).
10. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to receive
validity certificate conditionally. Hence, we pass the following
order :-
(a) The writ petition is partly allowed.
14675.21wp
(b) The impugned order dated 14/12/2021, passed by
respondent No.2/caste scrutiny committee is quashed and set
aside.
(c) Respondent No.2/committee is directed to immediately
issue the tribe validity certificate of 'Koli Malhar' Scheduled
Tribe category to the petitioner in the prescribed format, which
shall be co-terminus with the validity in favour of Anil
Kashinath Dandge.
(e) The petitioner shall not claim any equities.
(f) Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(f) No order as to costs.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
