9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 1644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence of the near relative / family member, ie., Devidas, the son of Petitioner No.1 and brother of Petitioner No. 2 in the genealogical tree or family tree. Apart from non disclosure of fact of invalidation of the claim of cousin sister Jyoti Mupade, the suppression of rejection of tribe claim of Devidas who is nearest relative of both the petitioners is to act adversely against these petitioners - the show cause notices were already issued to the Petitioner calling upon them to submit their say and to remain present before the scrutiny committee and in spite of receipt of notices, the Petitioners failed to appear before the scrutiny committee. It may not be out of place to refer to the principle oftenly quoted that he who approaches the Court of law, must approach the Court with clean hands. In the present matter, the Petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts, which were within their knowledge and in stead of approaching the competent scrutiny committee by disclosing the entire material, the Petitioners have placed only material which was supporting to the claims of Petitioners and this act of the Petitioners is certainly not a bonafide act and it can safely be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respective Petitioners were validated. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners that by following the due procedure, the scrutiny committee issued the validity certificates in favour of the Petitioners and Petitioner No.1 is serving in the forest department as forest guard since the year 1982 till date. It is stated in the petition that Petitioner No.2 is not taking any benefit of reserved category. Thus, it can be safely stated that Petitioner No.1 sought appointment in the Forest Department on the basis of his social status, granted to him by way of validity certificate in his favour. 5. One Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade had also approached the scrutiny committee for grant of validity certificate. The scrutiny committee could not find any favour in the claim of Jyoti Mupade. Resultantly, the tribe claim of said Jyoti Mupade was invalidated by the order dated 20th May 2001. Being aggrieved by the invalidation of tribe claim, said Jyoti Mupade filed a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2009, in this Court. By way of amendment sought for, Jyoti Mupade placed on record validities granted in favour of her relatives. Countering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er No.2 had not received any show cause notice from the office of Respondent No.1-scrutiny committee. Petitioner No.1 appeared before the scrutiny committee on 8th May 2013 and prayed for grant of time. It is further submitted that to the surprise of Petitioner no.1, it was informed to Petitioner No.1 by Respondent No.1-scrutiny committee that scrutiny committee had already taken a decision in the matter of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and had already informed the same to the Petitioners by postal communications. 7. Mr. Phatale, the learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently submitted that Respondent No.2-scrutiny committee passed the order against the Petitioners without giving an opportunity of hearing to them and the scrutiny committee had issued notices to Petitioner No.1 on 2nd April 2013 to appear before the Court on 23rd April 2013 and the said notice was received by the Petitioner on 1st May 2013 through his department; and as such Petitioner No.1 had prayed for some time to respond to the notices of the scrutiny committee. When Respondent No.1 approached Respondent No.1-scrutiny committee, it was informed to him that already the decision was taken. Thus, learned counsel M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Balaji Mupade and Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade, were invalidated, is suppressed from the committee. Learned AGP further submits that the Petitioners have indulged into the act of suppressing the material facts and this act is nothing less than the act of playing fraud. Learned AGP further submit that the Petitioners have suppressed the fact which was within their knowledge only to obtain the validity certificate in their favour. 11. Learned AGP also made available before this Court the original files of the scrutiny committee in respect of the claims of Petitioner No.1 Balaji mupade as well as Petitioner No.2 Savita Balaji Mupade and also the original file of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade. 12. On hearing of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, we are unable to find any favour with the the Petitioners. It is not in dispute that Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade who had approached the scrutiny committee for issuance of the validity certificate to certify that she belongs to Mannerwarlu scheduled tribe. The claim of Jyoti Mupade was rejected by the scrutiny committee on two grounds; firstly, there was some interpolation in the record as and by way of an addition of words in the sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een Devidas Balaji Mupade and Petitioner No.1-Balaji as well as Devidas and Petitioner No.2- Savita, it can be safely presumed that both these petitioners were well aware of the fact about the invalidation of the caste claim of Devidas. 16. On the backdrop of these facts, it is interesting to note that Petitioner No.1-Balaji Mupade submitted his claim for validation on 16th April 2008 with his own affidavit as well as the affidavit of Petitioner No.2-Savita. The perusal of pro-forma application shows that there is specific clause seeking responses from the claimant. As per clause No.17(A), the claimant has to make a statement before the committee as to whether any member in the family of claimant was subjected to the scrutiny under the validation claim; and if yes, the necessary details of such persons, namely, his name, his relation with the claimant and details of his scrutiny are sought for. It is very interesting to note that in reply to clause 17(A), the Petitioner no.1-Balaji makes reference to Petitioner No.2-Savita. In response to clause no.17(B), a reference is made to the validity certificate issued in favour of Petitioner No.2 Savita. 17. Learned AGP was justified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny committee for issuance of validity certificate and his claim was rejected and inspite of this fact, Petitioner No.2 Savita provided Nil information against clause Nos.17(A) and 17(B) in the proforma application. It is very interesting to note that Devidas had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 4616 of 2002, challenging the order of scrutiny committee rejecting his tribe claim. Thus, there is more than ample material to show that claim submitted by Devidas, i.e., son of Petitioner No.1 Balaji and real brother of Petitioner No.2-Savita was rejected by the scrutiny committee and this fact was well within the knowledge of both these petitioners. 20. Insofar as Jyoti Mupade is concerned, an application was submitted to the scrutiny committee on 24th April 1998. The scrutiny committee passed an order on 31st May 2001, rejecting her claim; and being aggrieved by that order, Jyoti Mupade filed a writ petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 1954 of 2009. 21. The claimant who is desirous of validation of his tribe claim, approaches the competent scrutiny committee as per the procedure laid down in accordance with the law, i.e., relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
