Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

AARTI NAMDEO GAWALIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing that no action be taken against the petitioners during the protection period provided by Section 6(b) and that the Committee note the amended provision.

Summary

The petitioners sought a direction to the Divisional Commissioner to register appeals against orders that invalidated their tribe claims. The State argued that the Commissioner was already registering the appeals. The petitioners relied on Section 6(b) of the relevant statute, which provides a 90‑day protection period after a claim is invalidated and an additional 30‑day period after the appeal is decided. The Court held that no punitive action could be taken against the petitioners during these protection periods and directed the Committee to note the amended provision. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of without any order of action against the petitioners.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 6(b) for 90 days after invalidation of their tribe claim and an additional 30 days after the appeal is decided
  • Whether any action can be taken against the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal

Subjects

  • tribal claim
  • Section 6(b)
  • protection period
  • writ petition
  • appeal registration
  • invalidated claim

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40400-DB

                                                    1               WP / 11539 / 2026



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                905 WRIT PETITION NO. 11539 OF 2026

                                 AARTI NAMDEO GAWALI
                                        VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                906 WRIT PETITION NO. 11573 OF 2026

                                 MUKUNDA BALU PADALE
                                      VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                908 WRIT PETITION NO. 11607 OF 2026

                                RAHUL SHALIGRAM INGLE
                                       VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                                    ...
                Advocate for petitioners in all WPs :Mr. D.D. Choudhari & Mr. R.B. More
               AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. R.S. Wani, Mr. S.R. Yadav Lonikar and
                                             Mr. N.S. Tekale
                                                    ...

                           CORAM                : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                  JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                           DATE                 : 2 SEPTEMBER 2026

              PER COURT :

                           The prayer in these petitions is only to direct respondent

              no. 3 i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to

              register the appeals of the petitioners challenging the orders of the

              invalidation of their tribe claims.


              2.           Learned AGP submits that now the Commissioner is

              registering the appeals.
                                     2                  WP / 11539 / 2026



3.             The only grievance of the petitioners is that by way of

impugned orders, the Committee has directed the authorities to take

appropriate action against the petitioners.


4.             Learned advocate for the petitioners invites attention to

section 6(b), which is insered in statute book giving protection of 90

days to a person whose claim is invalidated and also further 30 days

after the appeal is decided.


5.             In view of above, no action be taken against the petitioners

solely on the ground of invalidation of their tribe claims for a period of

pendency the appeals and for 30 days thereafter. The Committee is

also to take note of the amended provision and shall put the note

accordingly.


6.             It is made clear that the petitioners also will not take any

benefit of persons belonging to scheduled tribe till the proceedings

attain finality.


7.             With this, the writ petitions are disposed of.




       [ JITENDRA JAIN ]                        [ KISHORE C. SANT ]
            JUDGE                                    JUDGE

arp/


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.