ARVIND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner approaches this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, assailing order dtd. 13/5/2022 passed by respondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat, thereby rejecting caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Mannervarlu", Scheduled Tribe.

(3.) Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner belongs to the "Mannervarlu", Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority had issued caste certificate in his favour. The claim of the petitioner was referred for verification to the respondent-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, which was supported by validity of the blood relative i.e. Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad (real uncle), so also some other documents. The Committee on its own, examined the record in the matter of his uncle's validity and found that the claim of the cousin uncle of the petitioner namely Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad was invalidated in the year 1998. By suppressing the said fact he obtained fresh validity. The real uncle of the petitioner namely Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad has obtained his validity certificate on 3/6/2011 based on validity granted to Vishwanath. Accordingly, the Committee invalidated the claim of the petitioner by discarding evidence in the nature of validity of Pandurang. Mr. Thorat would submit that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to furnish his explanation. He would further submit that so far as validity of the real uncle of the petitioner i.e. Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad is concerned, it has been issued after following due process of law. The report of the vigilance inquiry favors the caste claim of Pandurang. Therefore, even excluding the validity granted in favour of Vishwanath Mahajan Deshatwad, the validity granted in favour of the Pandurang Vitthal Deshatwad dtd. 3/6/2011 can be maintained and caste claim of the petitioner could have been positively considered being close relative from paternal side of the validity holder.