Bombay High Court
BALAJI ANANDRAO CHINMALWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that, as the Divisional Commissioner was already registering the appeal and sub‑section (5) of Section 10 of the Caste Certificate Act sufficed, no further direction was necessary and the petition was disposed of.
Summary
Balaji Anandrao Chinmalwar filed a writ petition seeking a court order directing the Divisional Commissioner of Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division to register an appeal under Section 6(B) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 2026 against a Scrutiny Committee order dated 10.08.2026. The respondents, represented by the Attorney General, informed the court that the Commissioner was already in the process of registering the appeal. The petitioner also expressed concern that the Scrutiny Committee had directed his employer to act under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De‑Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, but the court noted that sub‑section (5) of that provision already addressed the issue. Consequently, the court found no need for any specific direction and disposed of the petition. The petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should direct the Divisional Commissioner to register the appeal under Section 6(B) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXXVIII of 2026.
- Whether a specific direction is required regarding the employer's action under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- appeal registration
- Section 6(B)
- Scrutiny Committee
- Caste Certificate Act
- Section 10
- High Court of Bombay
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41349-DB
909-WP.11293.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 WRIT PETITION NO. 11293 OF 2026
Balaji Anandrao Chinmalwar
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary And Others
...
Mr. Omprakash D. Totawad, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for the Respondents.
…
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned AGP
for the respondents.
2. The prayer in this petition is only to direct respondent no.2 i.e.
Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division to
register the appeal of the petitioner under Section 6(B) of the
Maharashtra Act No.XXXVIII of 2026 challenging the judgment and
order dated 10.08.2026 passed by the Scrutiny Committee.
3. The learned AGP, on instructions, submits that now the
Divisional Commissioner is registering the appeal under the said Act.
If the petitioner approaches the office of Divisional Commissioner,
this appeal would be registered and will be dealt with in due course.
Sayyed 1/2
909-WP.11293.2026.doc
4. Considering above, this Court finds that the petition can be
conveniently disposed off in view of the statement made by the
learned AGP.
5. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in the impugned
order, the committee has directed the employer of the petitioner to
take action under Section 10 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation
of issuance and verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (“the said
Act”). The said apprehension is already taken care of by sub-section
(5) of Section 10 of the said Act. In that view, no specific direction is
necessary.
6. With this, Petition stands disposed off.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Sayyed 2/2
Checking your session…