Tanishka Sanjay Shinde And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Throgh Its Secretary And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:14306-DB 1 WP / 4034 / 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 962 WRIT PETITION NO. 4034 OF 2024 1] Tanishka D/o Sanjay Shinde 2] Prachi D/o Suryakant Shinde 3] Prashant S/o Suryakant Shinde .. Petitioners

Versus

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department and another .. Respondents ...

Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Omgashad B. Boinwad AGP for the respondent - State : Mr. K.S. Patil ...

CORAM

: MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

DATE : 12 JULY 2024 PC :

The petitioners are before us, aggrieved by the judgment and order whereby their tribe claims of belonging to 'Thakur' scheduled tribe have been invalidated.

2.

We have heard both the sides for a while.

3.

Genealogy being relied upon, is as under:- Appa Shinde (Thakar) (great great grandfather) Dadasaheb Appa Shinde (Thakar) Devidas Appa Shinde (Thakar) Babasaheb Dadasaheb Ambadas Dadasaheb Kakasaheb Bajirao Devidas Shinde (Thakar) Shinde Shinde Dadasaheb Shinde Ashok Bajirao Devidas Bajirao Bhagwan Satyawan Makardhwaj Laxman Ramesh Keshav Mayuri Madhuri Vinay Kaustubh Ketaki (V. Holder) (V. Holder) Suryakant Santosh Sanjay Shivaji (Uncle -V. Holder) (Uncle) (Father -V. Holder) (Uncle) Tanishka Sanjay Shinde Virat (brother) (Applicant - Cerfificate holder) 4.

Irrespective of the reasoning assigned by the committee in the impugned order, in our considered view, it would suffice to observe

2 WP / 4034 / 2024 that Ketaki Satyawan Thakur has been directed to be issued with certificate of validity by a detailed order passed in writ petition no. 613 of 2022 on 25-01-2022. Pertinently, even father of one these petitioners by name Suryakant Kakasaheb was referred to as cousin uncle of Ketaki Satyawan Thakur and his validity was relied upon while directing certificate of validity to be issued to her, subject to the usual condition. 5.

In our considered view, this should be sufficient to grant certificate of validity to these petitioners, subject to the same condition more so when the petitioners are ready to face the consequences, as contemplated in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017).

6.

Writ petition is allowed partly.

7.

Impugned order is quashed and set aside.

8.

The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificates to the petitioners as belonging to 'Thakur' scheduled tribe in the prescribed format. The validities shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee has decided to re-open. 9.

The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE arp/