Aishwarya Rajendra Nikam v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Through Its Member Secretary And Another

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 WRIT PETITION NO.2686 OF 2022 AISHWARYA RAJENDRA NIKAM

VERSUS

SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Phatale Sagar S AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.K. Tambe .....

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : 24th NOVEMBER, 2022.

PER COURT :- 1.

The petitioner's tribe claim has been invalidated. After having completed the three years Polytechnic Computer Science Course, she has been granted direct admission to the 2nd year engineering graduation course. There are 25 validity holders from the paternal side of the petitioner. Out of them, 12 validities have been granted under the orders of the High Court.

2.

The learned A.G.P. submits that the committee is reopening certain cases and is also preparing to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for challenging the orders of this Court, granting validity certificates in 12 cases.

-23.

Following is the list of cases and the orders by which this Court has granted validity certificates:- Sr.No. Name of petitioner Writ petition No. Date of order Kanchan Gangadhar Nikam 10.07.1995 Priya Annasaheb Nikam 15.07.2019 Tanushri Dilip Nikam 13417 of 2018 08.11.2019 Yeshraj Dilip Nikam 25.03.2021 Rahul Prakash Nikam 20.01.2021 Nana Gorakhnath Nikam 12.03.2021 Gangadhar Ambadas Nikam 14.10.2021 Prakash Eknath Nikam 28.03.2022 Shubham Ashok Nikam 10202 of 2018 20.07.2021 Nakul Annasaheb Nikam 11091 of 2021 27.10.2021 4.

The petitioner has tendered an affidavit undertaking dated 22.11.2022, declaring that if any of the validity certificates of the relatives, relied upon by the petitioner, are subsequently cancelled after reopening of their cases, the petitioner's case would also suffer the same consequences. The said affidavit undertaking is taken on record and marked as "X-1" for identification.

-35.

The learned advocate for the petitioner has placed before us the family tree at page 134 of the petition paper book. He has also drawn our attention to the order passed by this Court, granting validity certificates to several paternal relatives. Out of family tree, only a few family members like the petitioner herein and four cousin brothers are yet to receive their validity certificates. 25 family members have been granted such certificates. He relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 54 and of this Court in Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Ors. 2010(6) Mh.L.J.

401, wherein this Court has ruled that when several family members from the paternal side have been granted validity certificates, it would be improper and would create an anomaly, if any blood relatives are refused such a certificate. It is contended that, conducting the Vigilance enquiry in each case would be only a repetitive action. He points out the reasons assigned by this Court while issuing orders, granting validity certificates to 12 family members, out of 25, who have received validity certificates. 6.

The learned A.G.P. has vehemently contended that the committee has noticed several contra evidence. By a reasoned order, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Several cases have

-4been reopened for scrutinizing as to whether the validity certificates were appropriately issued. The Special Leave Petitions are also contemplated to be filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for challenging the orders passed by this Court, granting validity certificates.

7.

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, on one hand, merely because the committee desires to reopen the cases, would not mean that all validity certificate holders have acted fraudulently or have played a fraud. The petitioner is in dire need of a validity certificate in the light of the fact that she has completed her three years Polytechnic course and has been selected for being admitted directly to the 2nd year engineering graduation course. 8.

The learned A.G.P. submits that the matter pertaining to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe is now referred to a Larger Bench after noting the view taken in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and others. He, therefore, submits that if this Court desires to grant validity to the petitioner, as like the 12 validity certificates granted by this Court to her blood relatives, the decision of this Court be subject to the result in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur (supra).

-59.

In view of the above and in the light of the fact that 22 validity certificates have been granted to the paternal blood relatives of the petitioner, out of which 12 have been granted by the High Court, that we do not agree with the reasons assigned by the committee in it's impugned judgment for distinguishing the case of the petitioner from those of her 25 blood relatives, who have been granted the validity certificates.

10.

This petition is therefore, partly allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2022 is quashed and set aside with the following directions:- a) The competent committee shall issue the validity certificate to the petitioner by 5.00 p.m. on 25.11.2022 since the petitioner has to submit the said certificate by 28.11.2022 (Monday) which is preceded by two holidays.

b) The petitioner shall be bound to her affidavit "X-1" and the decision of the Court in this litigation would be binding upon her.

c) If any of the validity certificates, issued to the paternal blood relatives, are set aside, the said decision would be binding

-6upon the petitioner and she would suffer the same consequences as would be suffered by those blood relatives, whose claims may be invalidated.

d) Needless to state, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shilpa (supra) would apply to the case of the petitioner. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J.) rlj/