Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

RAHUL SHALIGRAM INGLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal
DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petitions were disposed of without ordering any direction to the Commissioner, as the appeals were already being registered.

Summary

Petitioners Aarti Namdeo Gawali, Mukunda Balu Padale and Rahul Shaligram Ingle filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to register appeals against orders that invalidated their claims of belonging to a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners relied on Section 6(b) of the relevant statute, which provides a protection period of 90 days after a claim is invalidated and an additional 30 days after the appeal is decided, and asked that no adverse action be taken against them during this period. The respondent State, through its AGP, informed the court that the Commissioner was already registering the appeals. The court noted the petitioners' reliance on the statutory protection but found no basis to intervene further, as the procedural step of appeal registration was underway. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petitions without granting the relief sought.

Issues considered

  • Whether Section 6(b) of the applicable statute bars any action against petitioners during the 90‑day protection period and the subsequent 30‑day period after an appeal is decided.
  • Whether the High Court should direct the Divisional Commissioner to register the petitioners' appeals against the invalidation orders.

Legislation cited

  • Statute containing Section 6(b) — s. 6(b)

Subjects

  • tribe claim
  • Scheduled Tribe
  • Section 6(b)
  • protection period
  • appeal registration
  • writ petition
  • invalidated claim

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40402-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.