2026:BHC-AS:798-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION URMILA b P y R A U M RM OD ILA PRAMOD INGALE INGALE D 20 a 2 te 6 : .01.09

13:09:32 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 2021 Sandesh Nanaji Gangurde … Petitioner V/s.

State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w Mr. Siddhant Sawai, Ms. Prajakta Pashte, for the Petitioner.

Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Add. GP a/w Mr. Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel, for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK AND S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 8^th JANUARY 2026 ORAL ORDER (M.S.KARNIK, J.) :-

1. Heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.

Walimbe, learned Addl. GP appearing for the Respondent-State.

2. Mr. Walimbe learned Addl. GP vehemently opposes the Petition.

3. The challenge in this Petition is to the invalidation of the caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’. Inviting our attention to the impugned order, which according to learned AGP is a well reasoned order, it is submitted that Caste Validity Certificate of the Petitioner’s father which is at page no. 48 of the paper-book and that of the Petitioner’s blood brother which is at page 49 of the paper-book were granted on the basis of some misconception as seen from the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the Certificates of Validity issued in favour of the Petitioner’s father as well as his brother are still in force. The Scrutiny Committee has not issued any notice to the Petitioner’s father or his brother questioning the grant of Certificates of Validity on the ground of fraud/misrepresentation or any other permissible ground.

4. In such a view of the matter, having issued Certificates of Validity in favour of the Petitioner’s father and brother as belonging ‘Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’, there was no reason to deprive the Petitioner of the benefit of the claim for grant of Certificate of Validity.

5. We draw support from the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.¹ , in particular paragraph 24 which reads thus :

“24. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found in many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies upon caste vsalidity certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be issued either by the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the directions issued in Madhuri Patil Vs. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 or constituted under the Rules framed under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must ascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whether the applicant

1 (2023) 16 SCC 415 has established that the person to whom the validity certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood relative. For that purpose, the applicant must establish his precise and exact relationship with the person to whom the validity certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificate has been granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the Scrutiny Committee concerned after holding due enquiry and following due procedure.”

6. This Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others² in paragraph 4 observed thus :

“We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat- Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by b