Anuja Linguram Tummod v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And ORS.
1/4 (901)WP-2553-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2553 OF 2018 Anuja Linguram Tummod .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and ors .. Respondents ...
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Komal Gaikwad, Tanaji V. Jadhav, Priyanka S. for the petitioner.
Mr.S.B. Kalel, AGP for the respondents.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H.DANGRE, JJ.
DATED : 27th JULY 2018 P.C:- We have heard both sides.
On the earlier occasion, we found that though the petitioner produced credible evidence in the form of certificates of validity issued to her real uncle Nagnath Piraji Tummod and cousin uncle Rajanna Ramlu Tummod, which concededly hav been issued way back on 18th June 2001 and another certificate of validity dated 15th June 2011 to his cousin brothers Sujit Kumar Rajaram Tummod and Sumit Rajaram Tummod, the Committee finds that the certificate of validity issued to the real
2/4 (901)WP-2553-18.doc uncle Nagnath, is not free from suspicion. It is held by the Committee in the impugned order that a notice to show cause has been issued to Sujit Kumar and Sumit on 12th September 2017, calling upon them to show cause as to why this certificate of validity should not be cancelled as its issuance is vitiated by fraud or suppression of material facts by the said Sujitkumar and Sumit.
On such a finding being rendered by the Committee, we called upon the learned AGP on the earlier two occasions to produce the record. We also indicated to the learned AGP as to how the certificate of validity is denied to the petitioner though she has established her relationship with the said Sujitkumar and Sumit and only on the ground that a show cause notice has been issued, but no proceedings in furtherance thereof came to be initiated till date. The learned AGP sought time to file an affidavit. Now, the Joint Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken on record. The said affidavit admits that the certificate of validity has been issued to her real uncle and
3/4 (901)WP-2553-18.doc cousin uncle of the petitioner. The affidavit admits that the petitioner relies heavily on these two documents, but clarifies that there is a suppression detected from the original record of the certificate holder and that is how a show cause notice has been issued to Sujitkumar and Sumit. The show cause notice could not be taken to its logical end on account of the huge pendency of cases before this Committee. In all, 7,000 matters were pending on the date when this Joint Commissioner took charge and he has reduced the pendency by 2500 cases being decided. In the circumstances, he says that appropriate orders and directions be issued by this Court.
We are not impressed by this explanation and the justification not to proceed against a person who has perpetrated a fraud on the public. If it is a serious allegation and which is termed as fraud, then, it should have been taken to its logical end. Mere issuance of a show cause notice in the present case would not suffice for there are two certificates of validity relied upon. The only reason assigned in the impugned order to discard them cannot be sustained. The justification in
4/4 (901)WP-2553-18.doc the above affidavit is also not enough to straightaway discard the certificates of validity issued in the family. It is conceded that other reasons assigned in the impugned order cannot be supported in law.
As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition succeeds.
The impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 31st August 2017 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The certificate of validity be issued to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and by 1st August 2018. This order does not prevent the Committee from proceeding against Sujitkumar Rajaram Tummod and Sumit Rajaram Tummod in accordance with law and needless to further clarify that in the event their claim is invalidated, all the consequences shall be taken by the petitioner as well. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) by Manali Prasanna Tilak Date:
2018.07.31 19:40:10 +0530 Manali Prasanna