GOVIND BHIKA CHAVANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS

                                                           1                     10-wp-10095-2013.doc


                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 10095 OF 2013

                    Govind Bhika Chavan                                         ...Petitioner
                             Vs.
                    The State of Maharashtra through its
                    Secretary, Tribal Development Department
                    and Others                                                   ...Respondents

                                                      -----------------

                    Mr. R. K. Mendadkar (through VC) a/w. Ms. Priyanka Shaw, for the
                    Petitioner.
                    Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP, for the
                    Respondent / State.
                    Mr. Dipak T. Shigam, Law Officer, CVC Thane, is present.
                                                      -----------------
       Digitally
       signed by
       MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE  Date:
       2026.10.01
       11:25:20
       +0530
                                                     CORAM :          R. I. CHAGLA AND
                                                                      FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.

                                                     DATED        : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                    P.C.:-

                    1.             Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

                    consent of the parties.

                    2.             By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking setting aside of the

                    impugned Judgement and Order dated 24 th May 2013 passed by

                    Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee with further direction to Respondent



                     Mamta Kale                                                                   1/9
                                    2                      10-wp-10095-2013.doc


No.2 Scrutiny Committee to issue a certificate of validity in respect of tribe

certificate dated 18th February 2008 issued by the Competent Authority.

3.            The Petitioner was granted tribe certificate as belonging to

Mahadev Koli tribe on 18th February 2008. Mahadev Koli is recognised as a

Scheduled Tribe.

4.            The Petitioner joined services of Respondent No.3 on the post

of Constable, under reserved category of Scheduled Tribe on 10 th September

1994. Thereafter, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Police Naik in

the year 2006.

5.            Respondent No.3 forwarded the tribe certificate of the

Petitioner to the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for verification. The

Petitioner had also submitted various documents in support of his tribe

claim along with his application for verification. Respondent No.2 Scrutiny

Committee handed over the case of the Petitioner to the Vigilance Cell

attached to Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. The Police Inspector of

the Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of the Petitioner and submitted its

Report to the Scrutiny Committee.          The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny

Committee thereafter furnished a copy of the Enquiry Report to the

Petitioner and directed the Petitioner to file his explanation to the Enquiry

Report.

6.            The Petitioner’s explanation was accordingly filed on 23 rd May

2012 and the Petitioner was called for hearing by Respondent No.2 on 26 th

 Mamta Kale                                                                 2/9
                                         3                10-wp-10095-2013.doc


February 2013.

7.            Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, after hearing the

Petitioner, had passed the impugned Judgement and Order.

8.            The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned Judgement

and Order, and the likelihood that Respondent No.3 may initiate

proceedings against the Petitioner, including termination of the Petitioner’s

services on the basis of the impugned Judgement and Order invalidating

the tribe claim of the Petitioner belonging to the Mahadev Koli, Scheduled

Tribe, has filed the present Petition.

9.            Mr. Mendadkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the

Petitioner, submitted that, in spite of making a reference to the Judgement

of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Writ Petition No.3187 of 1994 Bapu

S/o. Daulat Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another, in paragraph

2 (XXIII) of the impugned Judgement and Order, Respondent No.2 Scrutiny

Committee has disregarded the same.          By the said Judgement of the

Aurangabad Bench of this Court, Tribe Validity Certificate was granted in

favour of the cousin uncle of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent No.2

Committee failed to appreciate this fact.

10.           Mr. Mendadkar has expressly referred to the findings of the

impugned Judgement and Order at page 21 of the Petition wherein the

cousin uncle of the present Petitioner has been described as applicant’s

cousin niece and reference is made to Madhuri Patil’s case in the context of

 Mamta Kale                                                                3/9
                                    4                     10-wp-10095-2013.doc


the said Judgement and Order having been passed when the Vigilance Cell

was not in existence. Further, the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has

observed that the Judgement of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) had been

passed long back in the year 1994, and the issue regarding the ratio of the

earlier decision has been discussed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1256 of

2003 in Pradeep Ramchandra Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.

Reliance has been placed on paragraph 7 of the said decision.

11.           Mr. Mendadkar has submitted that it is an admitted fact that

the said Judgement dated 10th October 1994 passed by this Court

(Aurangabad Bench), which had set aside the impugned Order of

Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and held that the Petitioner’s cousin

uncle belonged to the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe, has not been

challenged before the Supreme Court.          He submitted that the said

Judgement is accordingly final. He further submitted that the fact, that the

present Petitioner’s cousin uncle belonged to the Mahadev Koli Scheduled

Tribe, ought to have taken into consideration by the Respondent No.2

Scrutiny Committee and not disregarded in the aforesaid manner.

12.           Mr. Mendadkar has placed reliance upon the decision of this

Court in Shailesh Baban Shewale Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in

Writ Petition No.8736 of 2012 dated 20 th September 2016, wherein in an

almost identical case where the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee had

not considered the fact of real brother of the Petitioner having been granted

 Mamta Kale                                                                4/9
                                      5                     10-wp-10095-2013.doc


a tribe validity certificate, set aside the Order of the Scrutiny Committee.

13.           Reliance had been placed on the decision of this Court in

Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another in

Writ Petition No.7569 of 2008, Judgement dated 12 th April 2013, which had

held that the validity certificate issued in the matter is required to be taken

into consideration.   Reference was also been made to the Order of the

Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.7995 of 2004 decided in the

case of real brother of the Petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe

Mahadev Koli and the fact that the decision has not been challenged by the

Scrutiny Committee before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It has accordingly

been held that the said Order would be binding on the Scrutiny Committee

and it is not legally permissible to the Committee to take a view contrary to

the binding decision of this Court.

14.           Mr. Mendadkar has submitted that the decision of this Court in

Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra) would also apply to the present case. He

accordingly submitted that impugned Judgement and Order of the

Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee would be required to be set aside.

15.           The learned AGP, appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2

Scrutiny Committee, has placed reliance upon the Affidavit-in-Reply of

Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee dated 28 th November 2014.              She

supported the Order passed by Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee and

submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has relied upon the Vigilance Cell

 Mamta Kale                                                                    5/9
                                    6                      10-wp-10095-2013.doc


Report obtained in this case (which was not obtained in the case of the

Petitioner’s relative who is having validity certificate) which shows the

school record of the validity holder’s father as Koli. She also placed reliance

upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case.

She accordingly submitted that Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has

referred to the fact that the decision of this Court in Bapu S/o. Daulat

Chavan (Supra) has been passed when Vigilance Cell was not in existence.

16.           The learned AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Scrutiny

Committee has accordingly submitted that the validity certificate being

issued to the Petitioner’s cousin uncle has been correctly disregarded by the

Scrutiny Committee based on the finding that the said Judgement had been

passed long back in the year 1994. She submitted that the issue of validity

certificates to relatives cannot be considered as conclusive proof while

deciding the tribe claim of the Petitioner.      She accordingly sought for

dismissal of the Petition.

17.           Having considered the submissions, we are of the view that the

present case is similar to the case which arose before this Court in Shailesh

Baban Shewale (Supra), and is required to be considered in light of this

decision. In that case too, the validity certificate of the applicant’s brother

had been disregarded by the Scrutiny Committee by placing reliance upon

Pradeep Ramchandra Patil (Supra) as well as the Judgement of the

Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil’s case as has been done by Respondent

 Mamta Kale                                                                 6/9
                                    7                      10-wp-10095-2013.doc


No.2 Scrutiny Committee in the present case.

18.           This Court, in Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra), has relied

upon the Judgement of this Court in          Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh

(Supra), wherein this Court had set aside the Order of the Scrutiny

Committee and the said decision was not challenged in any proceedings

before the Supreme Court.       It was held that when the siblings of the

Petitioner viz., the paternal blood relatives, have been issued a Tribe

Validity Certificate, it is impermissible for the Scrutiny Committee to take a

view contrary to the binding decision of this Court. Here, in the present

case, in view of this Court, in Bapu S/o. Daulat Chavan Vs. State of

Maharashtra (Supra) in Writ Petition No.3187 of 1994, (Petition filed by the

cousin uncle of the present Petitioner) having set aside the Order of the

Scrutiny Committee and held the present Petitioner’s cousin uncle to be

belonging to the Mahadev Koli Schedule Tribe, and which decision has not

been challenged by the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee in the

proceedings before the Supreme Court, the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny

Committee could not have taken a contrary view to the binding decision of

this Court.

19.           The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has erroneously

placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Pradeep Ramchandra Patil

(Supra) as it has been held in Pratibha Gorakhnath Nikumbh (Supra), that

the validity certificate granted to blood relatives of the Petitioner cannot be

 Mamta Kale                                                                 7/9
                                     8                    10-wp-10095-2013.doc


disregarded and the Committee would be bound by the said validity

certificate. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, by taking a

decision to invalidate the tribe certificate of the present Petitioner by

disregarding the Order of this Court in Bapu S/o. Daulat Chavan (Supra) on

the ground that the said decision had been delivered when the Vigilance

Cell was not in existence, is contrary to the decision of this Court in

Shailesh Baban Shewale (Supra). We adopt the view taken by this Court in

the said decision.

20.             Accordingly, we find no merit in the submission on behalf of

the learned AGP for the Respondent State placing reliance upon the

decision of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (Supra) and Pradeep

Ramchandra Patil (Supra) which have been considered in Shailesh Baban

Shewale (Supra) and we hold that, in view of the present Petitioner’s

paternal blood relative, viz. cousin uncle’s tribe claim having been upheld

by this Court, and which decision has not been challenged by the Scrutiny

Committee in proceedings before the Supreme Court, the same is binding

on the Scrutiny Committee.

21.             Writ Petition No.10095 of 2013 is accordingly allowed in the

following terms:

              a. The impugned Judgement and Order dated 24 th May

              2013 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set

              aside.

 Mamta Kale                                                                8/9
                                       9                        10-wp-10095-2013.doc


             b.       Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee shall issue

             certificate of validity in respect of tribe certificate of the

             Petitioner dated 18th February 2008 issued by Competent

             Authority of Jurisdiction within a period of three weeks

             from the date of uploading of this Order.

             c.       The Rule is accordingly made absolute with no

             order as to costs.

             d.       Interim Application filed by the present Petitioner

             does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.



   [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.]                                  [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]




Mamta Kale                                                                       9/9