Sanjay Nagorao Isankar vs. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjay s/o Nagorao Isankar, challenged an order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee (Respondent No. 5). The Committee invalidated the petitioner's claim for the 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe status, citing failure to establish the claim through documentary evidence and lack of affinity with the tribe. The Committee also discarded validity certificates relied upon by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that his claim should be validated based on the validity certificate of his real brother, Sambhaji Nagorao Isankar, which was granted by relying on the validity certificates of paternal cousin brothers, Avinash Madhavrao Isankar and Ramdas Sambhaji Isankar. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the validity of Sambhaji was based on Avinash's validity, which was allegedly granted on an incomplete vigilance cell report, and thus the petitioner needed to establish his claim independently.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner, being the real brother of Sambhaji Nagorao Isankar, is entitled to the validation of his Scheduled Tribe claim. The Court noted that the relationship between the petitioner and Sambhaji as real brothers was undisputed and that Sambhaji's validity was granted following due procedure, including a vigilance cell enquiry report and a reasoned order. While acknowledging the objection raised regarding Avinash's validity, the Court emphasized that Sambhaji's validity certificate is in force, and the petitioner is entitled to derive benefits from it. Citing the principles laid down in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. The State of Maharashtra and others and Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur, the Court ruled that the petitioner's claim should be validated co-terminus with Sambhaji's validity. Consequently, the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside, and the Committee was directed to issue a validity certificate to the petitioner. The Court also directed that the petitioner's validity would be subject to the final outcome of any reopened validity matters concerning the original validity holders, and the petitioner would not be entitled to claim equities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to validation of his Scheduled Tribe claim for 'Mannervarlu' based on the validity certificate of his real brother, Sambhaji Nagorao Isankar, in light of the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Act, 2001 and relevant case law. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that as he is the real brother of Sambhaji Nagorao Isankar, whose validity certificate is in force, he is entitled to rely on it for validation of his own claim. He argued that the Committee's reasoning for discarding validity certificates and observations regarding affinity were erroneous. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents/State argued that no reliance could be placed on Sambhaji's validity as it was based on Avinash's validity, which was allegedly granted on an incomplete vigilance cell report. They asserted that the petitioner was required to establish his claim independently and could not claim relief solely based on his brother's validity.