Bombay High Court
Krishna Ramlu Kamlawar vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its … on 13 February, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:6162-DB
13445.23wp etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13445 OF 2023
Asha d/o Ramlu Kamlawar,
Age: 33 years, Occu: Service (Asst. Store Keeper),
R/o. Natkar Galli,
Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded,
At present : Balaji Nagar, Taroda Bk.,
Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Water Conservation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. The Commissioner,
Water Conservation Department,
Aurangabad
Paithan Road (WALMI), Aurangabad
3. Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter Aurangabad,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad ....RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13165 OF 2023
1. Krishna s/o Ramlu Kamlawar,
Age: 24 years, Occu: Student,
R/o. Natkar Galli,
Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded,
13445.23wp etc
(2)
2. Bajrang s/o Vishwanath Kamlawar,
Age: 28 years, Occu: Student,
R/o. Natkar Galli,
Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded, ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter Aurangabad,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad ....RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13461 OF 2023
1. Vishwanath s/o Kerba Kamlawar,
Age: 57 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Natkar Galli,
Behind Panchayat Samiti, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded, ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32
2. Deputy Director (Research)
and Member Secretary,
Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, Kinwat,
13445.23wp etc
(3)
Headquarter Aurangabad,
Near CIDCO Bus Stand, Aurangabad,
Dist. Aurangabad
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
4. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Degloor,
Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Chandrakant R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioners in all petitions
Mr S. R. Wakale, A.G.P. for respective respondents/State in all
petitions
Ms Y. S. Thorat, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 & 4 in WP No.
13461/2023
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 13th February, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have challenged the common order dated
05/10/2023, passed by respondent/Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee, invalidating their claim for ‘Koli Mahadev’
13445.23wp etc
(4)
Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001.
3. The scrutiny committee has concluded that the petitioners
have failed to establish their claim on the basis of documentary
evidence and also on account of failure to prove affinity with ‘Koli
Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe.
4. Learned advocate Mr C. R. Thorat appearing for the
petitioners in all these petitions has submitted that the scrutiny
committee has adopted perverse approach in discarding validity
certificates in favour of close blood relatives of the petitioners. It is
submitted that reasons stated to discard the validity certificates are
erroneous, and on the strength of documentary evidence, the caste
claim of the petitioners ought to have been validated.
5. Advocate Mr S. R. Wakale, learned A.G.P. for
respondents/State and learned advocate Ms Yogita Thorat for
respondent Nos.3 and 4 in Writ Petition No.13461/2023 have opposed
13445.23wp etc
(5)
the petitions and justified the impugned order. They have submitted
that no reliance can be placed on the validity of Sangita Ramlu
Kamlawar, dated 06/04/2011, which was granted without considering
other documents of the petitioners’ family and which was granted by
the committee comprising of Mr V. S. Patil, who had indulged in
serious irregularities in deciding the cases of caste claims. They have
submitted that the petitioners are bound to establish their claims
independently and cannot solely rely on validities of blood relatives.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
7. It has to be noted that the petitioners have relied upon
validity dated 06/04/2011 of Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar and have filed
the copy of vigilance cell enquiry report in her matter. Relationship of
Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar with petitioners being real sister of Asha and
Krishna, cousin sister of Bajrang and niece of Vishwanath is not
disputed. Even the affidavit of genealogy filed by Bajrang Vishwanath
Kamlawar, dated 22/09/2014 depicts the relations. The objection
about validity of Sangita only on account of Mr V. S. Patil being
member of the committee cannot sustain since validity of Sangita
was granted on the basis of vigilance cell enquiry report and
13445.23wp etc
(6)
other documents referred in the report. It may be seen that validity of
Sangita is not challenged and the same is in force.
8. In view of the settled position of law laid down in the
matters of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme
Court 1657] and Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh.
L.J. 401], considering the validity in favour of their blood relatives,
petitioners are entitled to derive its benefits.
9. Although, respondents have raised objection to
validity of Sangita, in view of the judgment of the Principal Seat
dated 27/07/2018 in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The
State of Maharashtra and others, [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363]
(Writ Petition No.5611/2018), the petitioners are entitled for grant of
validity certificate, which has to be co-terminus with valiidity of
Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar. Hence, we pass the following order :-
(a) The writ petitions are partly allowed.
(b) The impugned order dated 05/10/2023, passed by
respondent/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside to the
extent of the petitioners.
13445.23wp etc
(7)
(c) Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to issue
validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to the ‘Koli
Mahadev’ Scheduled Tribe in the prescribed format, which shall
be subject to outcome of validity of Sangita Ramlu Kamlawar,
which the respondent/committee has decided to reopen.
(d) The petitioners shall not claim any equities.
10. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk