Bombay High Court
GANESH KRUSHNARAO BAYASKARversusTHE COMMITTEE FOR SCRUTINY AND VERIFICATION OF TRIBE CLAIMS, AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioner's tribe claim must be reconsidered after proper verification of his relationship with Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar, and the earlier order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, Ganesh Bayaskar, challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, which rejected his claim to belong to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. He relied on a certificate of validity issued to his close blood relative, Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar, arguing that Supreme Court precedents allow such certificates to be given weight if certain prerequisites are met. The Court noted that the genealogy examined earlier did not mention Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar, so the petitioner’s relationship with him had not been established. Applying the principles from Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti and Apoorva cases, the Court held that the relationship must first be verified before the certificate can be relied upon. Consequently, the Court quashed the Committee’s order, remitted the matter for fresh consideration, and directed the petitioner to appear before the Committee to prove his blood relationship.
Issues considered
- Whether a certificate of validity issued to a close blood relative can be relied upon to validate the petitioner’s tribe claim.
- Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee complied with the procedural requirements in rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
- Whether the petitioner has sufficiently established his relationship with Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar.
Subjects
- tribe claim
- Scheduled Tribe
- caste certificate
- validity certificate
- Caste Scrutiny Committee
- blood relationship verification
- writ petition
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:37960
Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10907 OF 2004
Ganesh S/o. Krushnarao Bayaskar,
Aged about 31 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o. Mr. Mahurkar’s Flour Mill,
Hanuman Nagar, Chhoti Umari,
Akola – 444 005. … Petitioner
Versus
1. The Committee for Scrutiny &
Verification of Tribe Claims,
Amravati.
2. The Deputy Director of Education,
Amravati Region,
Amravati. .… Respondents
****
Adv. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Adv. Priyanka Shaw, for the petitioner.
Smt. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the respondent-State.
****
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati rejecting the tribe claim of the
petitioner as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.
1
Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is the
petitioner’s case that his close blood relative Gopal Mahadeo
Bayaskar was issued with the certificate of validity (page 56) of
the paper-book.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and
Others1 held that the following three prerequisites have to be
satisfied while giving weightage to the certificate of validity issued
in favour of the close blood relative:-
(i) The applicant must establish a clear and specific
relationship with the person in whose favour the validity
certificate has been issued;
(ii) The Scrutiny Committee must verify whether the
validity certificate was granted to the applicant’s blood
relative after due enquiry and in accordance with prescribed
procedure; and
(iii) The Scrutiny Committee must ascertain the
genuineness of the validity certificate relied upon.
5. This Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others2 has, in
paragraph 4 held thus :-
“4. We have considered the matter and we are of the
view that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to
1 (2023) 16 SCC 415
2 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401
2
Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt
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 blood is established or not doubted, and one
such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular
caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be
spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making
the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on
the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such
relation has been obtained by fraud.”
6. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti (supra) and Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale
(supra), the present petitioner being a close blood relative of
Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar is entitled to have his tribe claim
validated as belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.
7. We have heard learned AGP for the respondent. Learned
AGP supported the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee and submitted that there is nothing on record except
for the bald statement made by the petitioner that the said Gopal
Mahadeo Bayaskar is a close blood relative of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that the genealogy produced before the Caste
3
Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt
Scrutiny Committee, when the caste claim of the petitioner was
verified, did not find a mention of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar’s
name.
8. The writ petition is of the year 2004. The certificate of
validity of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar dated 24th October 2013 has
been brought on record by way of an amendment. No doubt in
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra)
and Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) the law is well settled.
However, the relationship of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar with the
petitioner needs to be verified. The genealogy which was verified
by the Vigilance Cell when the caste claim of the petitioner was
considered did not find the name of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar.
Therefore, in such view of the matter, the relationship of the
petitioner with Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar will have to be
established before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the first
instance.
9. In such view of the matter, an opportunity needs to be
given to the petitioner in the interest of justice to establish his tribe
claim on the basis of his submission made on oath that Gopal
4
Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt
Mahadeo Bayaskar is his close blood relative.
10. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
25th February 2004 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and
set aside. The matter is remitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Amravati to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh and in
accordance with law after verification of the relationship of the
petitioner with Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar.
11. The petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee on 30th September 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee to take a decision in accordance with law
expeditiously and in any case within a period of sixteen weeks
from 30th September 2026. The decision be communicated to the
petitioner.
12. All contentions on merits are kept open.
13. Rule is partly made absolute in the above terms.
14. The writ petition is disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/09/2026 15:05:42 5
Checking your session…