2026:BHC-AS:2814-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2010 Shri Dhondi Suresh Palve … Petitioner V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, 3. Deputy Collector, Sindhudurg.

4. Deputy Engineer, South Konkan Irrigation Project Circle … Respondents.

Mr. R.K.Mendadkar a/w. Priyanka Shaw, Jayshree Mendadkar, Siddhant Sawai, Jagdish Kawale, Prajakta Pashtre Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mrs. R.A. Salunkhe, Addl. G.P. for the Respondents-State.

Mr. Dipak T. Shigham, Law Officer present.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &

S.M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 14th January 2026.

Digitally s L i A g T n A ed by Oral Judgment (Per M.S. Karnik, J) :

LATA SUNIL SUNIL PANJWANI PANJWANIDate:

2026.01.21 +0530 . Heard Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mrs. Salunkhe, the learned AGP appearing for the State.

2. We have perused the order dated 12^th December 2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3. Brief background of the matter is as follows: The rejection of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was challenged by the Petitioner by filing a Writ Petition before this Court, which came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 12th December 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal, set aside the order passed by this Court, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The relevant paragraphs from the order dated 12th December 2025 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“1. The applications for substitution are allowed after condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if any, subject to all just exceptions. Applications for intervention/impleadment are also allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The issue that falls for consideration in these cases is whether the appellants or other similarly placed persons, who claim themselves belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe, are entitled to claim the benefits as would enure to the said Scheduled Tribe. It may be noticed that the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has, vide the impugned judgment, upheld the cancellation of caste certificates of a large number of persons because they did not fulfil the ‘affinity test’ for being considered as part of the Scheduled Tribe.

3. It is not in dispute that a three-Judge Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 24.03.2023 (passed in the instant proceedings). reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415, has held as follows:

“ 36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:

(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell. While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for the conduct of affinity test will arise.

(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding will the caste validity claim; and (c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.”

4. It may be seen from the above that this Court has categorically ruled that only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an inquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by applicant/claimant (like the appellants), the case can be referred to the Vigilance Cell. For doing so, the Scrutiny Committee is obligated to record brief reasons in