2025:BHC-AUG:27015-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 10869 OF 2025

1) Vijay s/o Rajenna Gonelwar,

Age; 28 years, Occupation : Service,

2) Sanjay s/o Shankar Gonelwar,

Age; 31 years, Occ; Education,

...PETITIONERS

Both resident of at and post Kundalwadi,

Tq. Biloli, District; Nanded.

V E R S U S

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. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer,

Biloli, Nanded,

Maharashtra.

4) The Superintendent of Police,

Ratnagari. ...RESPONDENTS.

…………..

Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. A.D. Sonkawade h/f Mr. S.G. Jayewar

A.G.P. for the Respondents/State : Mr.A.A.A.Khan

……………

AND

WRIT PETITION NO. 11122 OF 2025

1) Laxman S/o Poshetti Gonelwar,

Age; 34 years, Occ. Service, ...PETITIONER

R/o; Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded.

V E R S U S

1) The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 20.

2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat Division, N-1, CIDCO, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar-431003, Through its Deputy Director (R).

3) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department No. 2, ...RESPONDENTS.

Gadchiroli- 442605.

…………..

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Anil P. Piratwad A.G.P. for the Respondents/State : Mr.A.A.A.Khan ……………

CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 11.09.2025.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally, at the stage of admission.

2. Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and learned AGP representing for the Respondent State and the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

3. Both these Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the common judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 passed by respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee, by which, respondent No. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee, has invalidated the caste claims of the petitioners of belonging to “Mannervarlu”

Scheduled Tribe.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the caste certificate of the petitioners were subjected to verification before respondent no. 2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee. Pursuant to the said proceedings, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had directed for the vigilance cell enquiry and accordingly, the vigilance cell enquiry was conducted. In vigilance cell enquiry, which is conducted on 02.05.2025, the vigilance cell while submitting its report has observed that in the School record of one Laxman Poshatti Gonelwar which is shown as cousin brother of the petitioners, the caste shown against his name is ‘Burud’. The vigilance enquiry also shown that Sanjay Poshatti Gonelwar who is shown as cousin brother of petitioners, against his name caste ‘Padmashali’ is shown and the oldest document on which the petitioner rest their claim in respect of one Shankar Babanna Gonelwar, the vigilance cell have observed that in the column of caste after the word ‘Na’, the word ‘Lu’ seems to have been inserted. It is further contention of the petitioners that pursuant to the vigilance cell report, respondent no. 2 Caste Scrutiny Committee called the petitioners to file their reply to the said report of vigilance cell vide show cause notice dated 03.06.2025. The petitioners further assert that the petitioners on 18.06.2025, filed a detailed reply to the said notice. The petitioners contend that the petitioners in their reply have firstly denied the fact that the person namely Laxman Poshatti Gonelwar, against whom the caste is shown as ‘Burud’ is anywhere related to the petitioners. The petitioners have also further submitted that similarly the person who is shown as their cousin brother namely Sanjeev Poshetti Gonelwar against whose name the caste is shown as ‘Padmashali’, is also not related to them and lastly as far as the objection regarding all