1 991.WP-2976-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 991 WRIT PETITION NO. 2995 OF 2024 BARMA YADAV YANCHALWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS … Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.Thorat Chandrakant R. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R.Yadav-Lonikar WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2976 OF 2024 KAILAS TUKARAM YANCHALWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr.Thorat Chandrakant R. AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.R.Yadav-Lonikar Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. H.V.Patil ….. CORAM : S. G. MEHARE AND SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATE : 09 JANUARY 2025 PER COURT : 1. Considering exigency in the matter heard both sides finally. 2. Both the petitions are arising out of the common judgment and order dated 16.02.2024 passed by respondent no.3/Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe certificate of the petitioners. They 2025:BHC-AUG:1114-DB 2 991.WP-2976-2024.doc are cousins and there is common record. We propose to decide both the petitions by common order. The petitioners are relying on validity certificates issued to Narayan Laxman Yanchalwad, Paraji Tukaram Yanchalwad, Tukaram Bapurao Yanchalwad, Shantanu Narayan Yanchalwad and Shubham Narayan Yanchalwad. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shubham and Shantanu were issued with validity certificates by order passed by the Coordinate Bench. The self-same record has already been scrutinized while granting validities in the family on the ground of parity. The petitioners are entitled to receive validity certificates. It is submitted that petitioners are ready to face the consequences as laid down in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 5611 of 2018. It is further submitted that Narayan was issued with validity certificate after conducting vigilance enquiry and by reasoned order of the Committee. Relying on his validity, Paraji was also issued with validity certificate. In Paraji’s case vigilance was conducted and by reasoned order he was also issued with validity certificate by the Committee. As the validity certificates were issued in accordance with law that would enure to the benefit of the petitioner. 4. Learned AGP repels the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that petitioners did not rely on validity certificate of Narayan. Suppressing his validity reliance is placed on validity of Paraji. The validity certificate of Paraji is not reliable as it 3 991.WP-2976-2024.doc was issued by the Committee of which Shri V.S.Patil was the member. Without verifying the record and the relationship the certificate was issued. It is vehemently submitted that Narayan is not in relationship with the petitioner. There are different genealogies surfacing on record and claim of the petitioner appears to be doubtful. He would also advert our attention to the statement of Narayan recorded on 27.06.2018 in the matters of Shantanu and Shubham. It is submitted that it is glaring fraud on the part of petitioner and no relief can be granted to them. 5. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. We have gone through the original papers of Shubham and Shantanu which are placed on record. Narayan is the first validity holder in whose case vigilance was conducted and by reasoned order Committee had issued him a validity certificate. Relying on his validity, Paraji was also issued with validity certificate. There appears to be independent vigilance in case of Paraji’s case. On the basis of these validities, Shubham and Shantanu were issued with validity certificates. Pertinently the Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition No. 5856 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 7043 of 2019 granted them validity certificates conditionally. 6. We find that the Coordinate Bench has dealt with the self-same record in issuing conditional validities. We also propose to adopt the same course. There is no reason for us to differ and take contrary view in the matter before us. The submissions of learned AGP in 4 991.WP-2976-2024.doc respect of different genealogies and the suspicious relationship with earlier validity holders can not be gone into at this stage of the proceedings. Impugned judgment and order does not offer any comment or raise any doubt about the relationship. Though there is statement of Narayan on 27.06.2018 that would not be the sole basis to dislodge the claim of the petitioner. 7. In earlier common order passed by the coordinate bench in the matter of Shantanu and Shubham school record produced was argued to be bogus. The observations were made that at that stage of the proceedings, no opinion could be given as to whether there is fraud or not. It would be open for the Scrutiny Committee to conduct re-verification to find out as to whether there is fraud on the face of the record. The Committee has issued show cause notices to the earlier validity holders. Some time is likely to be spent for concluding the proceedings. The petitioner cannot be made to wait till final conclusion. 8. As the earlier validities in the families were issued after following due procedure of law, apparently they would enure to the benefit of the petitioners. Unless earlier validities are revoked, the petitioners may not be discriminated. The petitioners are ready to face the consequences as laid down in matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra). 5 991.WP-2976-2024.doc 9. In view of the above we are of the considered view that petitioners are entitled to conditional validities. We therefore pass following order : ORDER i) Impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Respondent/Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. ii) The Respondent/Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue Tribe Validity certificates to both the petitioners as belonging to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe which shall be subject to the outcome of re-verification proposed by the Scrutiny Committee. iii) The petitioners shall not claim any equities. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.] [ S. G. MEHARE, J.] vsj..