Jyoti Suresh Wankhede Alias Jyoti Dinesh Devare Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

The petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, confiscating and invalidating his tribe certificate of ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. Petitioner seeks to rely on the validity certificates of Shaligram, Prashant, Govind, Dheeraj and Nishant.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Dheeraj and Nishant were issued with validity certificates by orders of the High Court. The old record which has already been verified, supports the tribe claim. He would refer to old record of Ramchandra Motiram Thakur.

¶20

Learned AGP supports the impugned judgment and order. He would submit that the school record of Narayan, Ramchandra, Dnyandev, Bhaskar is incompatible with the tribe claim of the petitioner. He would submit that the validity certificates were rightly discarded by the Scrutiny Committee.

¶21

We have considered submissions of the parties. The relationship of the petitioner with validity holder is undisputed. Vigilance inquiry was conducted in the matter of Shaligram and then he was issued with validity certificate. Nishant and Dheeraj were issued with validity certificates by common judgment and order passed by the coordinate bench in Writ Petition No.3994/1999. Prashant was also issued with validity certificate. We do not find any material to discard the validities. When selfsame record was under consideration, the Committee could

¶22

3 47.WP-2906-2021.doc

¶23

not have discriminated the petitioner.

¶24

It reveals from record that the petitioner is relying on school record of Shivlal of 1919, Shamrao – 1916 and Ramchandra – 1922. Being pre-independence record, it has greater probative value. It corroborates the petitioner’s claim. The contrary entry pressed into service by learned AGP was that of Narayan Ramchandra of 1926. It is subsequent in time. The earlier pre-constitution record would prevail over entry of 1926. The Committee should have granted validity certificate to the petitioner.

¶25

Nishant and Dheeraj were issued with validity certificates by High Court vide common judgment dated 01.10.2023. The Committee has proposed to file review application in the matter of Nishant and Dheeraj. All the validity holders are issued show cause notices.

¶26

The petitioner is ready to run the risk as per the judgment rendered in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others , in Writ Petition No.5611/2018. She deserves validity certificate conditionally. We, therefore, pass following order :

¶27

ORDER

¶28

a. The writ petition is allowed partly.

¶29

b. The judgment and order dated 25.02.2020 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

¶30

4 47.WP-2906-2021.doc

¶31

c. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificate of ‘Thakur’ scheduled tribe to the petitioner forthwith. The same shall be subject to the outcome of re-verification and review orders of the High Court.

¶32

d. The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.

¶33

SHAILESH P. BRAHME JUDGE

¶34

MANGESH S. PATIL JUDGE

¶35

Najeeb..

Jyoti Suresh Wankhede Alias Jyoti Dinesh Devare Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Suresh Wankhede Alias Jyoti Dinesh Devare Thakur v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devidas Bhanudas Toradmal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Government of India Thr Its Ministry of Social Justice Empowerment Vs Sagar Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha Thr Its Member and Ors.

Ruturaj Mahavir Nawale through Guardian Mahavir Laxminarayan Nawale Vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Bhushan Vinesh Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ram Vishnu Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ashish Bhausaheb Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others