Bombay High Court
Vishal Laxman Shinde And Others vs State Of Maharashtra Through Principal ... on 29 August, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2023:BHC-AUG:18641-DB
1 948.WP-4427-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No. 4427 / 2023
1. Vishal s/o Laxman Shinde
2. Swapnil s/o Laxman Shinde
3. Virendra s/o Jagdish Shinde
4. Rutuja d/o Jagdish Shinde
5. Vednant s/o Sudhir Shinde ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat
Having its Head Quarter at Aurangabad
Through its Member Secretary. ...Respondents
___
Mr. Sagar S. Phatale, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A.A. Jagatkar, AGP for respondents/State.
___
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.
DATE : 29 AUGUST 2023.
FINAL ORDER [SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] :
. Heard both the sides finally.
1. The petitioners are taking exception to the judgment and order
dated 13.01.2023 passed by the respondent no.2/Scrutiny
Committee, invalidating their tribe claim as belonging to Thakur
scheduled tribe. According to the petitioners, the impugned judgment
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 05:34:38 :::
2 948.WP-4427-2023.doc
and order is arbitrary because the validity certificates were discarded
and the despite the old record, the caste claims were rejected.
2. The learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and order.
In support of his submission, the original papers in the matter of one
of the validity holders Rajesh Vitthal Shinde is produced on record.
The genealogy proposed by the petitioners is objected by the learned
AGP. He would submit that the Scrutiny Committee is justified in
rejecting the caste claim considering the contrary record.
3. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The
genealogy which is produced on record indicates that there are
number of validity holders to support the claim of the petitioners.
The petitioners are relying upon the validity certificates of Ganesh
Shinde and Dnyaneshwar Shinde. Our attention is invited to the
vigilance report prepared in the matter of Ganesh, which is at page
no.42. The school record of various relatives were considered in the
vigilance enquiry. It further transpires that the record of Narayan
Shinde and Baburao Shinde was pre-constitutional. Thereafter
Ganesh was issued with validity certificate.
4. The petitioners have also shown that by a reasoned order,
Dnyaneshwar was issued with validity certificate. We find that both
the validity certificates are reliable. Unless they are revoked, the
petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of identical social status.
We, therefore, find that the impugned judgment is discriminatory.
5. The learned AGP has shown from the original papers that the
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 05:34:38 :::
3 948.WP-4427-2023.doc
genealogy produced in the matter of Rajesh Vitthal Shinde is
inconsistent with the genealogy produced by the petitioners in the
present matter. The relationship of the petitioners with the validity
holders is doubtful. We are not satisfied with the submissions of the
learned AGP at this juncture. We cannot embark an enquiry into this
aspect of the matter. It is informed that the Scrutiny Committee has
proposed re-verification. This aspect can be gone into during the re-
verification.
6. We are of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled
to conditional validity. The impugned judgment and order is
unsustainable. We, therefore, partly allow the petition by passing
following order.
ORDER
(i) The judgment and order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificates of 'Thakur' scheduled tribe to the petitioners , which shall be subject to the final outcome of re-verification undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee.
(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate for the re-verification.
(iv) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
[SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] NAJEEB/..
::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2023 05:34:38 :::