Hemant Sudhakar Madane v. The Joint Commissioner/Member Secretary, Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Commite Nashik Divisio

1 wp 1518.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1518 OF 2012 Hemant Sudhakar Madane ..Petitioner

Versus

The Joint Commissioner / Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and others .. Respondents Mr. Prakash S. Paranjape, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Mr. Anil S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. G. AVACHAT, JJ.

DATE:

st November, 2018 PER COURT :

1.

Mr. Paranjape, the learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the tribe certificate obtained by respondent no. 3 pursuant to which validity is given by the committee is a forged and fabricated document. The petitioner had applied to the Tahsil office - Shindkheda with the copy of the tribe certificate issued to respondent no. 3. The office of the Tahsildar - Shindkheda on 17.12.2009 replied that the tribe certificate

2 wp 1518.12 allegedly issued to respondent no. 3 does not bear the number and the same does not appear to have been issued by the office of the Tahsildar - Shindkheda. The learned counsel further submits that the committee be directed to initiate the enquiry as the procedure does not appear to have been followed. The petitioner has locus standi as respondent no. 3 has filed a criminal case under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 against the petitioner.

2.

Mr. Golegaonkar, learned Advocate for respondent no. 3 submits that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to assail the validity granted in favour of respondent no. 3. The office of the Tahsildar in the letter dated 17.12.2009 has only observed that the record is not available and it is not clearly stated by the office of the Tahsildar that the tribe certificate given to respondent no. 3 is not issued by that office. The learned counsel submits that at the time of issuance of validity, the Scrutiny Committee had

3 wp 1518.12 directed vigilance to be conducted. The vigilance authority had sought for the record from the office of the Tahsildar - Shindkheda. It was informed by the Tahsildar - Shindkheda that the tribe certificate dated 24.09.1980 has been issued to respondent no. 3 by the office of the Tahsildar - Shindkheda. The learned counsel submits that the paternal cousin of the petitioner has been issued with the validity certificate under the order of the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur.

3.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. 4.

We may not go into the aspect of the locus at this stage. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the validity as criminal case has been filed by respondents no. 3 against the petitioner.

5.

As far as the letter of the Tahsildar dated 17.12.2009 relied by the petitioner is concerned, the letter only states that no record is available

4 wp 1518.12 and in view of that the information as sought cannot be provided. The said letter nowhere categorically and specifically states that the certificate has not been issued by the office of the Tahsildar. Moreover, it appears that at the time of issuing validity to respondent no. 3, the committee had directed the vigilance to be conducted. The vigilance committee has approached the Tahsildar. It appears that the Tahsildar had replied to the query of the vigilance about the issuance of the tribe certificate to respondent no. 3, and the Tahsildar - Shindkheda under its letter dated 19.08.2003 intimated the vigilance committee that the office of Tahsildar - Shindkheda has issued the tribe certificate to respondent no. 3 dated 24.09.1980. The learned A.G.P. produced the record issuing validity to the respondent no. 3. The vigilance report submitted also clarifies that they have obtained the confirmation from the office of the Tahsildar that the said certificate has been issued by the office

5 wp 1518.12 of the Tahsildar.

6.

It also appears that the committee had invalidated the tribe claim of one paternal cousin of the petitioner namely Prajakta against the said decision the said Prajakta approached this Court at Nagpur. The Division Bench at Nagpur allowed the writ petition filed by the said Prajakta under judgment and order dated 10.07.1987, directing the validity to be issued in favour of the Prajakta Baburao Thakur.

7.

The committee it appears has followed the procedure while issuing validity to respondent no. 3. Even this Court has directed validity to be given to the paternal cousin of the petitioner namely Ku. Prajakta Baburao Thakur.

8.

In the light of above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. No costs.

[R. G. AVACHAT, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe