Bombay High Court
NITIN BALAJI ADBEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court directed the Committee to decide the petitioner’s tribe claim within four months and barred any adverse action against the petitioner pending that decision.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Balaji Adbe, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued by the State of Maharashtra demanding submission of a Tribe Validity Certificate, threatening adverse action if not produced. The petitioner argued that the claim before the Committee had been pending since 2017 and that any action before the Committee’s decision would prejudice his rights. The respondents contended that the request for expeditious disposal had already been made and that the Committee faced a heavy backlog. The Court observed that the notices were solely based on non‑production of the certificate and that no other grievance existed, and therefore ordered that no adverse action be taken pending the Committee’s decision. Consequently, the Court directed the Committee to decide the tribe claim within four months and disposed of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner can be subjected to adverse administrative action for not producing a Tribe Validity Certificate before the Committee decides the claim.
- Whether the Court can direct the Committee to dispose of the tribe claim expeditiously.
Subjects
- tribal rights
- tribe validity certificate
- expeditious disposal
- administrative notice
- committee proceedings
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37877-DB
917-WP.10331.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
917 WRIT PETITION NO. 10331 OF 2026
Nitin Balaji Adbe
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.
2. Issue notice to respondent nos.1 and 2.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the notice
issued by respondent no.3 dated 25.04.2026 and the subsequent
notice dated 10.07.2026, calling upon the petitioner to submit a Tribe
Validity Certificate, failing which it has been stated that appropriate
action would be taken against the petitioner. The proposal of the
petitioner is already pending before the Committee since 19.09.2017.
4. It is the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner
that it is not within the petitioner's control to get the proceedings
decided expeditiously. So long as the claim of the petitioner has not
Sayyed 1/2
917-WP.10331.2026.doc
been invalidated, any action taken against the petitioner would
prejudice the petitioner's rights. Therefore, he prays for expeditious
disposal of the claim proceedings before the Committee. Since the
notices have been issued only on account of non-production of the
Tribe Validity Certificate, and as we find that there is no other
grievance against the petitioner on the part of respondent Nos. 3 and
4, this Court finds that no notice is required to be issued to
respondent nos. 3 and 4.
5. The learned AGP submits that the request for expeditious
disposal has already been made and that some time may be required
to decide the claim in view of the heavy pendency of claims before
the Committee.
6. The petition can conveniently be disposed off with a direction
to respondent no.2. In view of above, following orders :-
Respondent no.2-Committee is requested to decide the
tribe claim of the petitioner within four months from today
or as early as possible. Till the decision by the Committee,
no adverse action be taken against the petitioner on the
ground of non-production of the Tribe Validity Certificate.
7. Petitions stands disposed off.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Sayyed 2/2
Checking your session…