Siddhant Shankarrao Kanchanwar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:11844-DB ( 1 ) 976 wp 5284.25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 976 WRIT PETITION NO. 5284 OF 2025 SIDDHANT SHANKARRAO KANCHANWAR

VERSUS

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

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Giri Umakant P. AGP for Respondents/State : Ms. V.N. Patil Jadhav .....

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

DATE :

22.04.2025 P.C. :- 1.

The petitioner is challenging the order of invalidation. 2.

Issue notice. The learned AGP waives service for all the respondents. At the joint request of the parties the matters is heard finally at the stage of admission.

3.

It is being pointed out that a common vigilance inquiry was conducted in the petitioner's real sister-Sakshi's matter and report was submitted on 09.11.2022. Her similar claim was rejected by the scrutiny committee. On her challenge to the order, in writ petition no.7217/2023, by

( 2 ) 976 wp 5284.25 the order dated 07.08.2023 she was held entitled to have a certificate of validity, albeit conditionally.

4.

The impugned order in paragraph nos.3 and 4 expressly mentions that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice by serving him with a copy of the vigilance report in the matter of Sakshi and the committee has chosen to decide the petitioner's claim on that basis. 5.

The aforementioned facts and circumstances make it evident that common set of evidence forms the basis for the committee to adjudicate the claims of Sakshi as also the petitioner. When a coordinate division bench, for the reasons recorded in the order dated 07.08.2023, has held Sakshi entitled to have a certificate of validity and has quashed and set aside a similar order of the committee, we need not assign separate reasons and cannot reach incompatible conclusion.

6.

For the reasons recorded in Sakshi's matter, the petition is allowed partly. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The committee shall issue the certificate of validity to the petitioner which shall be co-terminus with the validity which the committee has decided to reopen. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] mub