Pravin Devrao Tekle v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others
2024:BHC-AUG:30680-DB *1*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.954 OF 2024 RAMESHWAR UTTAMRAO TEKLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.953 OF 2024 DIPAK GANGADHAR TEKLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.950 OF 2024 SANDEEP GANGADHAR TEKLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
WITH WRIT PETITION NO.942 OF 2024 PRAVIN DEVRAO TEKLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Shri Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ruchir S. Wani, AGP for the respondents/State. ...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 18th December, 2024
*2* Per Court ( Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.
):- Heard finally by consent of parties.
2.
In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the common order dated 04.01.2024 passed by respondent No.4/ Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee thereby, invalidating their claim of belonging to 'Mannervarlu', Scheduled Tribe.
3.
Amongst several grounds raised by the petitioners, it is submitted that close blood relatives of the petitioners have been granted validity certificates and the petitioners are also entitled for validation of their claims. In support of their submissions, the petitioners have relied upon the order dated 09.09.2024 in Writ Petition No.9578/2024 (Sanskruti Pramod Tekle vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), which was passed by this Court on the basis of the documents submitted by the said petitioner. It is submitted that the claim of Sanskruti was validated in view of the validity of Dnyaneshwar Uttamrao Tekle, who is real brother of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.954/2024. Since the same set of documents which were subjected to scrutiny of this Court while deciding the writ
*3* petition of Dnyaneshwar Tekle and since the validity is granted to Sanskruti on the strength of validity of Dnyaneshwar, the petitioners are also entitled for validation of their claims. Since the impugned order is a common order, each of the petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of the validity of Dnyaneshwar and Sanskruti. This apart, Dnyaneshwar is paternal side uncle of Dipak Gangadhar Tekle, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.953/2024 and Sandeep Gangadhar Tekle, who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.950/2024.
4.
The respondents do not dispute the fact that the petitioner (Rameshwar Uttamrao Tekle) in Writ Petition No.954/2024 is real brother of Dnyaneshwar and that same set of documents were subject matter of scrutiny in those cases. The genealogy on record is also not disputed.
5.
In view of the order dated 09.09.2024 in Writ Petition No.9578/2024, these petitions will also have to be decided by passing similar orders. It is also evident that the order dated 09.09.2024 granting validity to Sanskruti was passed by relying upon the validities granted to Dnyaneshwar Tekle, Pramod Tekle and Rukmini Tekle and the validity certificate to
*4* Sanskruti was made co-terminus with the validity certificates of her blood relatives. The petitioners in these cases can be granted similar validity certificates. Hence, the following order:- (a) The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioners.
(c) The respondent Scrutiny Committee is directed to immediately issue validity certificates of 'Mannervarlu', Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners in the prescribed format. (d) The validity certificates of the petitioners would be co-terminus with the validity certificates of Sanskruti Pramod Tekle and other blood relatives and would be subject to final out come of the matters of other validity holders to be reopened by the Scrutiny Committee.
(e) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.
(f) No order as to costs.
kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)