1010-W.P.-1001-2004.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1010 WRIT PETITION NO. 1001 OF 2004 Ramesh Dagdu Thakur ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Others ...Respondent _______________________________________________ Shri S. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri P. S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondent/State Shri D. P. Madkar, Advocate h/f Shri D. S. Manorkar, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 (through V.C) _______________________________________________ CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4778 OF 2012 IN WP/1001/2004 CORAM : S. G. MEHARE & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ. DATED : 29th JANUARY, 2025 PER COURT : 1. Heard both sides considering the exigencies in the matter. 2. The petitioner is challenging judgment and order dated 24.07.2002 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating his tribe certificate as belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 1 of 5 2025:BHC-AUG:2676-DB 1010-W.P.-1001-2004.odt 3. Petitioner is relying on the validities issued in the family and for that purpose reliance is placed on the genealogy. It is submitted that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the petitioner with the validity holders. There are as many as four validities issued in the family. Out of them two were issued by Scrutiny Committee and two were issued by the indulgence of this Court, vide common judgment and order dated 06.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No. 9823 of 2024 and Writ Petition No. 14464 of 2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selfsame record has been scrutinized on earlier occasion and therefore, there is no reason to take any contrary view. On the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to validity certificate. He would further submit that petitioner is ready to face the consequences as per judgment of this Court in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and other in Writ Petition No. 6320 of 2017. 5. Learned AGP repels the submissions by referring to various documents. He would submit that the Scrutiny 2 of 5 1010-W.P.-1001-2004.odt Committee has taken reasonable view. There was no satisfactory evidence on record. The tribe claim was not corroborated. The validities were not before the Committee, when the Committee decided the matter. The committee has rightly expressed reservation about the surname of one of the validity holders. He would pray to dismiss the petition. 6. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties. 7. The petitioner is relying on the validities issued to his paternal side relatives, which are figuring in the genealogy at page No. 33. Atmaram, Ganesh, Mansi and Aniket are the validity holders. Out of them Ganesh is the real brother of the petitioner, whereas Mansi and Aniket are the neice and nephew of the petitioner. Learned counsel has adverted our attention to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in the matter of Ganesh. 8. Our attention is also invited to common judgment and order dated 06.09.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench in the matter of Aniket Mahesh Thakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 9823 of 2024 and Mansi 3 of 5 1010-W.P.-1001-2004.odt Mahesh Thakur Vs. State Common Entrance Test Cell in Writ Petition No. 14464 of 2021. By reasoned order, this Court granted them conditional validities. The Scrutiny Committee did not express any reservation for the relationship of the petitioner with Ganesh and the members of the family shown in the genealogy. If the relationship is undisputed, we can safely rely upon the latest common judgment and order passed by co-ordinate bench. 9. The selfsame record has also been scrutinized on earlier occasion by Committee as well as by the High Court. 10. Learned AGP submits that committee has undertaken reverification of the validity certificates issued in the family. Therefore, absolute validity cannot be issued to the petitioner. 11. We are of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to validity on the ground of parity. The petitioner is ready to face the consequences as per judgment in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra). Therefore, conditional validity can be issued to the petitioner. We therefore, pass the following order. 4 of 5 1010-W.P.-1001-2004.odt ORDER (i) Writ Petition is allowed partly. (ii) Impugned judgment and order dated 24.07.2002 is quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificate of ‘Thakur’ Schedules Tribe to the petitioner forthwith, which shall be co-terminous with the validities in the family, which are under reverification by Scrutiny Committee. (iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (v) There shall be no order as to costs. (vi) Civil Application stands disposed of. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) (S. G. MEHARE, J.) Komal/ 5 of 5