Maroti Balaji Mupade v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:8258-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3612 OF 2025 MAROTI BALAJI MUPADE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. S. S. Joshi ...

CORAM

:

MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 18.03.2025 PER COURT :

.

Heard both sides.

2.

The petitioner is taking exception to the common impugned judgment and order of respondent - the Scrutiny Committee dated 07.03.2025, whereby it has refused to validate his 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe certificate.

3.

Issue notice. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

4.

With the consent of both sides, the matter is being disposed of finally.

1/3

5.

It is being pointed out that the impugned judgment is presided by a common vigilance enquiry conducted in the matter of several individuals including the petitioner. It is also being pointed out that out of those ten individuals, few had faced invalidation and could succeed in getting certificates of validity by approaching this Court in different writ petitions. These are as follows:- i.

Pooja Vilas Mupade V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Others; WP No. 9042 of 2020, decided on 06.01.2021.

ii. Neha Vinod Mupade V/s.The State of Maharashtra and Others; WP No. 9043 of 2020, decided on 06.01.2021.

iii. Akshay Digambar Mupade V/s. The State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Other; WP No. 9815 of 2024, decided on 10.09.2024.

iv. Pranita Prakash Mupade and Others V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Another; WP No. 8953 OF 2024, decided on 23.08.2024 6.

Since all these decisions of the scrutiny committee and also of this Court being based on the same set of evidence, we need not record separate reasons much less to arrive at some incompatible conclusion.

7.

For the selfsame reasons as have been recorded in the matter of Pooja, Neha, Akshay, Pranita, Pranali & Satish (supra) the petition is allowed partly. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The committee shall issue certificate of validity to the petitioner of 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe.

2/3

8.

It shall be co-terminus with the validities which the committee has decided to re-verify.

9.

The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) jhs/ 3/3