Prajyot Ram Siddamwar v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:13622-DB 952 WP NO. 6029 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6029 OF 2025 PRAJYOT RAM SIDDAMWAR

VERSUS

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

• Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R., Advocate for the Petitioner • Mr. S. R. Wakale, AGP for Respondents ...

CORAM

:

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

DATE : 06.05.2025 PER COURT :

.

Leave granted to delete respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2.

Heard.

3.

Issue notice. Learned AGP waives service for both respondents.

4.

Petitioner's real brother Rohit Ram Sidhamwar was seeking certificate of validity of 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe. The committee rejected his claim and on his challenge in writ petition No. 7584 of 2018, by the order dated 24.07.2018 (Exhibit - 'D'), a division bench at the principal seat quashed and set aside the order 1/2

952 WP NO. 6029 OF 2025 of the committee and directed the certificate of validity to be issued to him subject to usual conditions.

5.

When the petitioner approached the committee seeking a similar validation, the vigilance enquiry conducted in the matter of Rohit was used by the committee to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner. A report of vigilance cell enquiry in Rohit's matter was served to the petitioner and his explanation was solicited. After his response, without recording to any other scrutiny/enquiry, his claim was also decided based on the vigilance enquiry report in the matter of Rohit.

6.

Since Rohit has already been held entitled to have a certificate of validity, for the same reasons as have been recorded by the division bench in writ petition No. 7584 of 2018, the petitions is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner of 'Mannervarlu' scheduled tribe, it shall be co-terminus with the other validities which the committee has decided to reopen. 7.

The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) jhs/ 2/2