2172.25wp (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2172 OF 2025 1. Rajesh Baburao Metalwad, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Student 2. Pooja Baburao Metalwad, Age: 28 years, Occupation: Student 3. Priyanka Madhavrao Metalwad, Age: 26 years, Occupation: Student 4. Neha Madhavrao Metalwad, Age: 22 years, Occupation: Student, All above R/o: Karna, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded ….PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary ....RESPONDENTS …. Mr A. D. Sonkawade, Advocate h/f Mr Sainath Jayewar, Advocate for petitioners Mr S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for respondents/State CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 13th February, 2025 2025:BHC-AUG:5949-DB 2172.25wp (2) JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the common order dated 09/12/2024, passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, invalidating their claim for ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001. 3. The scrutiny committee has observed that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim on the basis of documentary evidence as well as on account of failure to prove affinity with ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe. The scrutiny committee has although considered the validity certificates of close relatives of the petitioners, however, has discarded the validities by referring to invalidation orders of some other family members. 2172.25wp (3) 4. Assailing the impugned order, learned advocate Mr A. D. Sonkawade, h/f advocate Mr Sainath Jayewar for the petitioners has submitted that the claim of the petitioners ought to have been validated on the basis of several validities in favour of close blood relatives of the petitioners. Apart from other documentary evidence, he has relied upon validity certificates in favour of real uncle of the petitioners namely Gangadhar Kisanrao Metalwad, cousin brothers, namely, Dilip Sheshrao Metalwad, Madhav Sheshrao Metalwad and Kirankumar Uttam Metalwad; and cousin uncle Uttam Ganpati Metalwad amongst others. It is submitted that, there are so many validities in the family and the committee has adopted a perverse approach in discarding these validity certificates. The petitioners have filed on record the vigilance cell enquiry report and validity certificates in the matters of these validity holders. He has also relied upon the order dated 12/09/2023 in Writ Petition No.5202/2022 (Vidya Shivaji Metalwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and another) and Writ Petition No.5432/2022 (Vivek Shivaji Metalwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and another), which are decided on the basis of validities of Gangadhar, Dilip and others, as referred above. 5. Advocate Mr S. V. Hange, learned A.G.P. for respondents has opposed the petition and justified the impugned order. He has 2172.25wp (4) submitted that in view of invalidation of claim of other relatives, petitioners cannot rely conclusively on the other validity holders. He has submitted that the petitioners are required to prove their claims independently. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the papers. 7. Amongst other documents, the petitioners have relied upon validity certificates in favour of Gangadhar Kisanrao Metalwad, Dilip Sheshrao Metalwad, Madhav Sheshrao Metalwad, Kirankumar Uttam Metalwad and Uttam Ganpati Metalwad, as referred above. Relationship of these persons with the petitioners is not disputed as can be seen from the vigilance cell enquiry report and the impugned order. Considering the validity certificates in favour of these persons, this Court has decided Writ Petition Nos.5202/2022 and 5432/2022 (supra), granting conditional validity in favour of the petitioners therein. Since there is no dispute about relationship of the petitioners with validity holders, they are entitled to derive benefits in view of the settled position of law as laid down in the matters of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [AIR 2023 Supreme Court 1657] and 2172.25wp (5) Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, [2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401]. 8. Although respondents have raised objection about the validities already granted to the family of the petitioners, in view of judgment in the matter of Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others, [2018 SCC OnLine Bom 10363] (Writ Petition No.5611/2018), the petitioners are entitled for grant of validity certificate, subject to outcome of validities which the committee may reopen. Hence, we pass the following order :- (a) The writ petition is partly allowed. (b) The impugned order dated 09/12/2024, passed by respondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside to the extent of the petitioners. (c) Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to issue validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to the ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe in the prescribed format, which shall be subject to outcome of validities which the committee has decided to reopen. (d) The petitioners shall not claim any equities. 9. Rule is made partly absolute in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) sjk