Partly allowed

Anmol Jayprakash Perke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC10 Oct 2023WP/4343/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed orders invalidating the Scheduled Tribe claim of three petitioners. Holding that prior invalidity orders against family members do not act as res judicata, the court directed the committee to issue tribe validity certificates to the petitioners, albeit subject to the final outcome of review proceedings regarding alleged fraud by other validity holders in the family.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; Respondent committee directed to issue tribe validity certificate to petitioners as belonging to Mannervarlu ST, subject to final outcome of review.

Anmol Jayprakash Perke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2021

¶4

Anmol S/o Jayprakash Perke .. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2] The Directorate of Technical Education, Maharashtra State, 3, Mahapalika Marg, Opp. Metro Cinema, Mumbai 3] The University of Mumbai, M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 032 Through its Registrar 4] Sir J.J. College of Architecutre, 78/3, Dr. D.N. Road, Mumbai Pin – 400 001. Through its Principal 5] Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4825 OF 2021 Gaurav S/o Ratnakar Perke .. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶5

2 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶6

2] Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4910 OF 2021

¶7

Apurva D/o Ratnakar Perke .. Petitioner

¶8

Vesus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Medical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶10

2] The Director of Medical Education, Saint John Hospital Campus, Mumbai – 32.

¶11

3] Maharashtra University of Health Science, Dindori Road, Mhasrul, Nasik, Dist. Nasik, Through its Registrar

¶12

4] Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental School, Dr. Ajinkya D.Y. Patil Knowledge City, Charoli (Bk.), Lohegaon, Pune Dist. Pune Through its Dean ( Amendment carried out as per Court’s order dated 14 June 2021 )

¶13

5] Deputy Director (Research) and Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Near Saint Lawrence High School, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents

¶14

... Advocate for petitioners in all WPs : Mr. C.R. Thorat AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. S.G. Sangale

¶15

3 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶16

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

¶17

DATE : 10 OCTOBER 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

¶19

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. In view of the exigency, at the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶20

The petitioners are challenging the order of invalidation of their tribe claim of Mannervarlu scheduled tribe. Though the impugned order was a common order, the petitioners are assailing it by separate writ petitions. Hence, this common order.

¶21

The learned advocate for the petitioners would advert our attention to the genealogy regarding which there is no dispute or the fact that there are more than 17 validities in the family as mentioned in the impugned order, since the year 1998 till 2011. He would submit that even this Court has granted the conditional validities to some viz . Shivam Digambar Perke and Sumit Maroti Perke in writ petition no. 9400 of 2023 and 9552 of 2023 respectively. He would submit that the committee had no reason to ignore these many validities in the family and even the petitioners could have been granted conditional validity even if, for the reasons recorded in the impugned order, the committee expressed its intention to undertake review of the matters in respect of the validity holders, for alleged fraud practised by them.

¶22

4 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶23

The learned advocate would then submit that though there were two initial invalidities wherein similar claims of Jaiprakash Jaywantrao Perke and Dhananjay Dattatray Manjramkar (Perke) were rejected in the year 1986, the invalidities would not operate as res judicata and would not prevent the family members to substantiate their claims at some later point of time. Though the committee has observed that the subsequent validities were obtained by concealing these two first invalidities, the approach of the committee is incorrect; rather perverse and arbitrary. He would submit that the petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing the consequences as laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (writ petition no. 6320 of 2017) .

¶24

The learned AGP supports the order. He submits that the committee has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons as to why it was not ready to extend the benefit of number of validities in the family. He would submit that the validity certificates were obtained by practising fraud. The committee has inherent power and jurisdiction to undertake review in the light of the decision in the matters of Raju Ramsingh Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar; (2008) 9 SCC 54 , T. Vijendradas & Another vs M. Subramanian & Others; (2007) 8 SCC 751 and Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde v State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 1954/2009 decided on 22/08/2012 ) . The learned AGP

¶25

5 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶26

would submit that apart from the above state-of-affairs, the committee could trace several contrary entries in respect of the family members as elaborately enlisted in the tables in the impugned order wherein the petitioners’ family members were shown in the school record as Munu, Munurvar, Munurvar Kapu, Manuvar.

¶27

The learned AGP would also submit that even the committee could trace that the petitioners’ family members had resorted to some manipulation wherein the school record was manipulated. Letter ( " लू " ) “ lu” was added to the description of the caste ‘Munurvar’. Even the revenue record of the petitioners’ ancestors described them as Munurvar. He would, therefore, submit that the committee has taken a plausible decision to undertake review since concealment of all these contrary entries and the manipulated record, according to it, would constitute fraud.

¶28

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the papers.

¶29

Admittedly, there are 19 validities in the family, two of which have been issued pursuant to the order of this Court in the matter of Shivam Digambar Perke and Sumit Maroti Perke. The impugned order itself refers to several validities. It is not the stand of the committee that these are not the individuals from the blood relations of the petitioners. It is also not the stand of the scrutiny

¶30

6 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶31

committee that the validity certificates were issued without following due process of law.

¶32

True it is that there were two initial invalidities of the year 1986. The committee observes that the subsequent validity holders had obtained the validities concealing these two initial invalidities. In our considered view, such approach of the committee is not sustainable in law. Admittedly, there cannot be a dispute about the fact that the claim for validation of a caste or tribe certificate issued under the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 ( Act ) would result in the decision which would be individual centric, particularly the order of invalidation.

¶33

By virtue of section 8 of the Act, burden is on the claimant to substantiate the claim by leading cogent and convincing evidence. If a family member is unable to discharge the burden, obviously it would result in dismissal of the claim. However, that would not preclude another family member from making an attempt to seek the validity by leading cogent evidence. If he is able to do that, we cannot comprehend as to why his case cannot be decided independently on its own merits. If it is a matter of social status, a person would be entitled to substantiate the claim by leading necessary evidence which would discharge the burden. Obviously, such orders passed in respect of some individuals would not operate as res judicata and bind the

¶34

7 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶35

other family members. Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the other family members who were able to secure certificates of validities from subsequent committees, that would not constitute a circumstance leading to fraud, per se .

¶36

The committee has also referred to few other circumstances which according to it would reveal fraud. Since it would be a mixed question of fact and law, as to whether a particular circumstance would constitute fraud, according to us, it will not be appropriate for this Court in these proceedings to make any comment in that regard as those validity holders are not before us and it would not be appropriate for us to make any comment which could have some bearing on the matters which the committee has decided to reopen.

¶37

We have discussed the afore-mentioned circumstance of alleged concealment of the validities only because it involve a pure question of law as to whether the decision rendered by the committee in the matter of a family member regarding invalidation would bind the other family members. Consequently, we do not feel it appropriate to discuss the other circumstances which according to the committee substantiates its inference about the validity holders having obtained the validities by practising fraud.

¶38

8 WP / 4343 / 2021+

¶39

Since the petitioners are ready to run the risk of facing the consequences, as laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra), when this Court has directed the validities to be issued to afore-mentioned two individuals whose validities have been expressly stated to be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee has decided to reopen in respect of the validity holders, even the petitioners deserve to be extended the limited benefit of having certificate of validity.

¶40

14. In the result, the following order :-

¶41

I) The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

¶42

II) The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioners as belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without adding anything. The validities shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee has decided to re-open.

¶43

III) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim equities.

¶44

IV) Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶45

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

arp/

Anmol Jayprakash Perke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anmol Jayprakash Perke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Fulchand Khomane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Janta Shikshan Prasarak Mandals B. Ed. College through Its Authorized Officer Aziz Shomad Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Mahesh Jagannath Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Gaurav Ratnakar Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Apurva Ratnakar Perke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rohan Prakashrao Wallamwad and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another