Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
MANGESH S. PATIL, SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
Prashant Hanmantrao Barlawar – Appellant
Versus
Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7095 of 2021
Decided on : 03-10-2022
Tribe Claim - Scrutiny Committee Decision - Mannervarlu - 2003 (6) Mh.L.J. 401 - The court examined the validity certificates issued to the petitioner's relatives and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's tribe claim. The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's claim had attained finality and that the validity certificates issued to the petitioner's relatives could not be relied upon. The court also considered the vigilance report, school records, and the genuineness of documents. The court ultimately upheld the Scrutiny Committee's decision to reject the petitioner's tribe claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's tribe claim was rejected by the Scrutiny Committee in 2004, and subsequent attempts to reopen the issue were unsuccessful. The petitioner sought to rely on the validity certificates issued to his relatives, but the court found that the rejection of the petitioner's claim had attained finality.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's tribe claim rejection had attained finality, and the validity certificates issued to his relatives could not be relied upon. The court upheld the Scrutiny Committee's decision to reject the petitioner's tribe claim.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's tribe claim rejection had attained finality and whether the validity certificates issued to his relatives could be relied upon.
Ratio Decidendi: The rejection of the petitioner's tribe claim had attained finality, and the validity certificates issued to his relatives could not be relied upon. The court also considered the vigilance report, school records, and the genuineness of documents.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed without any orders as to costs, and the interim protection granted earlier was vacated.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioner assails the decision of the Scrutiny Committee dated 29.04.2021 rejecting his tribe claim of the ‘Mannervarlu’ community.
3. The facts in nutshell are as under :
The petitioner was issued ‘Mannervarlu’ tribe certificate on 19.06.2003 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Deglur, District Nanded. The tribe certificate was referred for validity before the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad on 14.07.2003. By order dated 31.05.2004, the Committee was pleased to reject his tribe claim. The decision of Scrutiny Committee was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5405 of 2004. For reasons undisclosed, he choose to withdraw the Writ Petition on 16.09.2005.
4. The petitioner’s brother Pravin came to be issued the validity certificate by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad by order dated 25.05.2007. On the strength of validity certificate issued in favour of Pravin, his father-Hanmant was issued validity certificate in the year 2008. Similarly the petitioner’s real cousin brother-Sudhakar was also issued validity certificate in the year 2010 relying on validity certificate of Pravin.
5. On account of validity certificates being issued in favour of brother-Pravin, father-Hanmant and cousin-Sudhakar, petitioner filed Civil Application No. 6835 of 2010 in Writ Petition No. 5405 of 2004 for recalling the withdrawal order. By order dated 11.07.2014, this Court proceeded to reject the same. The petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.8907 and 8908 of 2016 before the Supreme Court, challenging the order passed in Civil Application on 11.07.2014, as well as order passed in Writ Petition on 16.09.2005. When Special Leave Petition came up for haring before the Supreme Court 0n 12-05-2016, Petitioner chose to withdraw it seeking liberty to move the Scrutiny Committee for review. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition as withdrawn granting liberty as prayed for.
6. In exercise of liberty granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner filed Review Application dated 06.06.2016 before the Scrutiny Committee. Complaining that the Committee was not deciding his Review Application, he filed Writ Petition No. 9627 of 2017 before this Court. By order dated 18.08.2017, this Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner’s review application within the stipulated time frame. The Scrutiny Committee thereafter, proceeded to examine the review application and by the judgment and order dated 28.04.2021, rejected his tribe claim. The judgment and order dated 29.04.2021 is the subject matter of the challenge before us in the present petition.
7. Appearing for the petitioner Mr. Deshpande, the learned Advocate would submit that since the petitioner’s blood relatives i.e. father, brother and real cousin were granted validity certificates, the Committee ought not to have rejected his tribe claim. That the mother has also been issued validity certificate. Inviting our attention to the application submitted by Pravin before the Committee in March 2017, he would submit the factum of rejection of the tribe claim of the petitioner was duly brought to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee. He would therefore question the correctness of the findings recorded by the Committee about suppression by Pravin about rejection of the petitioner’s tribe claim while obtaining the validity in his favour. He would further submit that there was no suppression or fraud in grant of validity certificate to Pravin. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur and Anr. 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, he would submit that the petitioner is required to be granted validity c
The withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of false caste claims is a necessary consequence of the invalidation of the caste claim.
The court emphasized that pre-Constitutional documents are of higher probative value for determining tribe claims, and invalidation by the committee on the basis of affinity test was not legally soun....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to settled legal principles and the principles of appreciating the evidence in determining the validity of tribe certificates.
The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence and vigilance inquiry before rejecting a caste claim based on a blood relative's validity certificate.
The Scrutiny Committee cannot invalidate tribe validity certificates of blood relatives without evidence of fraud or jurisdictional issues; valid certificates must be accepted to ensure consistency a....
Scrutiny Committees must accurately interpret documents without multiplying entries or ignoring replies to vigilance reports; perverse invalidations based on fabricated contra indications quashed wit....
The main legal point established is that once a validity certificate is issued in favor of a blood relative, no further inquiry is required unless there is evidence of fraud, as per settled law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
