SAMBHAJI PRAKASH SURYAWANSHI THROUGH GUARDIAN PRAKASH SAMBHAJI SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                    (1)                949-WP-10917-2025


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 949 WRIT PETITION NO. 10917 OF 2025

Sambhaji Prakash Suryawanshi
Through Guardian Prakash Sambhaji Suryawanshi            ...Petitioner
             VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
Through Its Secretary And Others                         ...Respondents
                                   ...
Mr. Avinash M. Nagarkar h/f Mr. S. G. Jayewar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. J. P. Reddy, AGP for Respondent-State.

                                 CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                            AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                 DATE     : 25th JUNE 2026.

PC :-


1.      Heard Mr. Nagarkar h/f Mr. Jayewar, learned Advocate for the

petitioner and Ms. Reddy, learned AGP for Respondent/State. By consent

of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of

admission.


2.      A challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 03.09.2025

passed by Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
                                    (2)                949-WP-10917-2025


Committee (for short “Scrutiny Committee”) invalidating the tribe claim

of the present petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadev (29) (Scheduled

Tribe) on the ground of affinity and also on the ground that the

petitioner has produced false and fabricated documents. The petitioner

is, therefore, before this Court.


3.    Learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that there

is already a validity certificate granted by the Scrutiny Committee to one

Shrikant Sanjay Suryawanshi, who happens to be the first cousin of the

present petitioner. The father of Shrikant namely, Sanjay Sambhaji

Surwayanshi, and father of the present petitioner namely, Prakash

Sambhaji Suryawanshi, are real brothers and the sons of one Sambhaji

Ranbaji Suryawanshi. He further submits that said Shrikant has already

filed affidavit showing the relationship between himself and present

petitioner. The observations of the Scrutiny Committee were thus made

without properly considering the record. He further submits that from

the school record also, it was clearly shown that the caste of the

petitioner is recorded as Koli Mahadev (29) (Scheduled Tribe). There are
                                     (3)               949-WP-10917-2025


other documents from the school records showing that his grandfather

belonged to Koli Mahadev tribe. He has taken this Court through the

observations made by the Scrutiny Committee. He submits that there are

many relatives whose names are placed in the record and they are

shown to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. There is also pre-

independence document. The oldest document is of the year 1952 in

respect of grandfather of the petitioner namely, Sambhaji Ranbaji

Suryawanshi and there is no dispute. He thus submits that the petitioner

needs to be issued a validity certificate.


4.    Learned AGP vehemently opposed the petition. She has produced

the original file of the proceedings before this Court. She submits that

the signature of the headmaster found on school leaving certificate of

Sambhaji Ranbaji Suryawanshi appears to be fabricated. There is an

endorsement of the headmaster stating that the record of admission in

the school for period prior to 26.10.1953 is lost. The school leaving

certificate, therefore, does not bear the signature of the headmaster. The

signature is of a clerk namely, Anirudhha Nerulkar. Even the signature
                                    (4)                  949-WP-10917-2025


and stamp are not of the school. She thus submits that the document

itself is fabricated and cannot be relied upon. It does appear that even

complaint was filed by the clerk of the school namely, Anirudhha

Nerulkar with the police station about records. The Scrutiny Committee

has, therefore, rightly rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner. She thus

submits that considering overall documents, it is clear that the petitioner

could not prove his claim based on documents. She thus prays for

rejection of the writ petition.


5.    This Court has perused the record. This Court finds that there is

nothing to dispute the relationship between Shrikant and the present

petitioner. This Court has already granted validity certificate in favour of

Shrikant. When the cousin of the petitioner namely, Shrikant is granted

certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, we do not find any reason to

refuse to grant validity certificate to the present petitioner. Hence,

following order:-


                        ORDER

       (i)   Writ Petition stands partly allowed.
                                          (5)                   949-WP-10917-2025


             (ii)   We direct Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate

             Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate in favour of

             petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.

             (iii) We make it clear that, in the event the case of Shrikant

             Sanjay Suryawanshi, cousin of the present petitioner, or any other

             relative of the petitioner is reopened, this validity certificate shall

             be subject to outcome of such proceedings.

             (iv) With these, writ petition stands disposed off.



[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                              [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


D.A.ETHAPE