Partly allowed

Abhipriya Abhimanyu Ibite v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Bombay HC28 Aug 2024WP/9305/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of Scrutiny Committee order invalidating her tribe certificate. Court noted corroborative validity of father and sisters under Supreme Court precedent. Quashed impugned order and directed immediate issuance of certificate subject to re-verification.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 26.08.2024 quashed and set aside. Committee directed to issue tribe validity certificate to petitioner as belonging to Rajgond scheduled tribe.

Abhipriya Abhimanyu Ibite Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:20039-DB

¶2

1 PB-2.WP-9305-2024.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 9305 OF 2024

¶5

ABHIPRIYA D/O ABHIMANYU IBITE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶8

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. V.M. Chate

¶9

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &

¶10

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 28 AUGUST 2024

¶12

FINAL ORDER (Per Shailesh P. Brahme, J.) :

¶13

. Heard both the sides finally as there is urgency for the petitioner.

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, invalidating her tribe certificate. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that despite having validities of her father and sisters, she was denied validity certificate which is discriminatory. Unless their validities are revoked, she cannot be deprived of same social status.

¶15

Learned AGP supports impugned judgment and order. He would submit that the Scrutiny Committee is justified in discarding validity certificate because the validities of the relatives of the

¶16

2 PB-2.WP-9305-2024.doc

¶17

petitioner are not reliable. The Committee has proposed to conduct re-verification. The earlier contrary school record of blood relatives of the petitioner was suppressed. He would submit that this is not a fit case to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

¶18

We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. There is no dispute that the validity holders – Abhilasha and Abhiruchi are real sisters of the petitioner. Her father Abhimanyu is also validity holder. It also depicts from genealogy that there are other validity holders who are paternal side relatives. Petitioner’s father is first in time. There was vigilance inquiry in his matter and favourable as well as contrary entries were also verified. The affinity test was recorded in his favour. Thereafter by a reasoned order he was issued with validity certificate.

¶19

Petitioner’s sister – Abhilasha was issued with validity certificate by the High Court vide order dated 30.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.7510/2018. Thereafter another sister Abhiruchi was issued with validity certificate by the High Court in Writ Petition No.8345/2020 vide order dated 17.12.2020. Thus the tribe claim is sufficiently corroborated by validities of father and real sisters. In view of judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 2023 SCC Online SC 326, the petitioner is also entitled to receive the validity.

¶20

The Committee has issued show cause notices to the validity

¶21

3 PB-2.WP-9305-2024.doc

¶22

holders. The suppression of adverse entries can be gone into by the Committee during re-verification. The petitioner is ready to run the risk of facing the consequences contemplated in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Others , in Writ Petition No.5611/2018. In this situation, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be quashed.

¶23

The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 26.08.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondent/Committee shall immediately issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Rajgond’ scheduled tribe in the prescribed format without adding anything. The validity shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters which the Committee has decided to re-open.

¶24

The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.

¶25

Parties to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]

¶27

Najeeb..

Abhipriya Abhimanyu Ibite v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhipriya Abhimanyu Ibite v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pranav Anil Lolapod Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Prahci Devidas Sonawane and Another Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee through Its Member Secretary

Manali Manoj Jagtap through Guardian Savita Manoj Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Santosh Sangram Waghmare Vs Mahananda Devnath Dahiphale and Others

Mahananda Devnath Dahiphale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Deepak Sahebrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others