Aakanksha Rajendra Gore v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary, And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7598 OF 2018 Aakanksha Rajesh Gore ...

Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. S. M. Kulkarni a/w Mr. O. B. Boinwad for Petitioner. Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for Respondents - State.

Mr. Shriniwas Solanke a/w Mr. Nayyim Shaikh, Law Officer present.

CORAM

:

SHANTANU KEMKAR & N. W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE :

JULY 24, 2018 P.C.

.

At the request of learned Counsel for the Petitioner, leave to amend is granted.

2.

Amendment in the cause title of the Petition to be carried out forthwith.

3.

Re-verification is dispensed with.

Digitally signed by Vijaya Gourishankar Yadav Date:

2018.07.30 14:30:15 +0530 Vijaya Gourishankar Yadav ....1

4.

Heard by consent. Taken up for final disposal at this stage.

5.

The Petitioner relying upon the validity certificate granted to her real uncle Sanjay Manoharrao Gore, real Aunts from paternal side Jagruti Manoharrao Gore and Arti Manoharrao Gore and her cousin grand-father Rupendra Vyankatrao Gore approached the Respondent No. 2 - The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad (for short, 'the Committee') with a claim for issuance of validity certificate as belonging to 'Koli Mahadev'. The Respondent - Committee vide impugned order dated 25th June 2018 negated the claim. As such, this Writ Petition.

6.

According to the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner, the decision of the Committee runs contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v/s Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 which was based upon the Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave v/s Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others, reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54. So also the in the case ....2

of "Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others, (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 113". 7.

The learned Counsel for Petitioner then would urge that the entry of 1976 in regard to the father of the Petitioner who holds a validity certificate is claimed to have suppressed adverse entry, as there is an entry as 'Fulmali' in the caste column which is contrary to the other old documents. The learned Counsel submits that in the Vigilance Cell Report of Rupendra submitted to the Respondent - Committee the specific observations are made that Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category. 8.

Per contra, the learned AGP submits that the family tree submitted by the Petitioner does not match with that of the family tree that was submitted by the cousin grand-father Rupendra Vyankatrao Gore. According to the learned AGP, there is sufficient material on record including adverse entry which has prompted the Committee to reject the claim. According to the learned AGP there is no case made out for interference and sought rejection. 9.

With the assistance of the learned AGP, perused the relevant record in regard to the validity holder i.e. father of the Petitioner Rajendra Manoharrao Gore. There is a substantial ....3

variance in the family tree produced by the validity holder Sanjay Manoharrao Gore i.e. uncle of the Petitioner, Rupendra Vyanketrao Gore, cousin grand-father of the Petitioner and Petitioner herself. 10.

Apart from above, the Vigilance Cell Report appears to have been served on the Petitioner vide communication dated 21st June 2018 and was called upon to submit her say within four days i.e. 25th June 2018. According to the Petitioner since there were directions by the High Court, the Committee has not granted time as provided under Sub-Rule 8 of Rule 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 governing the proceedings before the Committee.

11.

As a consequence of above, Petitioner has made out a case for remand so as to avail an opportunity to prove her relationship with the validity holders, the adverse entry as regards her father who holds a validity certificate, also other entry which goes adverse to the interest of the Petitioner. 12.

In the aforesaid background, it will be appropriate, in our opinion, to quash and set-aside the impugned order dated 25th June, 2018 with permission to the Petitioner to appear before the ....4

Committee along with her explanation to the relevant entries and observation made herein above. The Petitioner to appear before the Respondent - Committee on 28th September, 2018, the date on which the Respondent - Committee shall make her available copies of relevant entries, if any, in addition to referred above viz - the family tree which is relied upon by the validity holders. The Petitioner shall submit her explanation thereon by 31st October 2018 and the Committee shall decide its claim within a period of three months thereafter.

13.

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.) ....5