Bombay High Court

SHUBHAM DIGAMBAR MACHEWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court directed the committee to decide the petitioner’s tribal claim by 30 September 2026.

Summary

The petitioner, Shubham Digambar Machewad, sought a validity certificate for his tribal claim, which has been pending before a committee (Respondent No.2) since a proposal was filed on 15-10-2024. The petitioner argued that his sisters had already been granted validity or conditional validity in earlier orders, and that the committee’s request for additional documents was unnecessary and caused undue delay. The respondents contended that the committee is entitled to request any documents it deems necessary and that the delay, while regrettable, is within its discretion. The Court observed that the prolonged pendency was contrary to the interest of justice and directed the committee to decide the petitioner's claim by 30-09-2026. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the extent of the committee's discretion to request additional documents and cause delays in granting a tribal validity certificate?
Can the High Court direct the committee to decide the pending claim within a specific timeframe?

Subjects

tribal validity certificate
administrative delay
writ petition
committee discretion
high court direction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42254-DB


                                                 1              24-wp 11776-2026.odt



                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 11776 OF 2026

                 Shubham Digambar Machewad                                 .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Secretary Tribal Development
                 Department And Others                                     .. Respondents

                 Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner.
                 Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4.
                 Mr. Sachin V. Kuptekar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3.

                                          CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                  JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                          DATE       :   11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                 PER COURT :-

                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for

                 the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and learned advocate for respondent

                 No. 3.


                 2.     The tribe claim of the petitioner is pending with the

                 committee – respondent No. 2. The proposal was submitted on

                 15.10.2024. Hearing has also taken place on 16.07.2026. The

                 matter is still not concluded. It is the case of the petitioner that his

                 real sister namely Sneha is already granted validity by the
                               2             24-wp 11776-2026.odt


committee on 03.10.2017. Another real sister namely Sandhya is

granted validity on 26.06.2019. Another sister namely Sunanda is

granted conditional validity by this Court on 24.01.2022. It is still

the committee is asking for some other documents from the

petitioner.


3.    The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in spite

of this position the committee is unnecessarily asking for new

documents for verification which are not required. He places

reliance on the order passed by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ

Petition No. 7696/2026 dated 29.07.2026. This Court in the said

order had commented upon the conduct of the members of the

committee and thereafter had directed to take action against the

members. He further relies upon the judgment in the case of

Anjali Sheshrao Kabade Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others in

Writ Petition No. 9032/2026 wherein, this Court in similar

circumstances had granted the validity to the petitioner therein.

The learned advocate thus submits that it is a fit case where this

Court can grant validity certificate. For that purpose he relies upon

other judgments passed by this Court.
                                  3             24-wp 11776-2026.odt


4.       The learned A.G.P. submits that in every case it is for the

committee to get the documents to their satisfaction and it is only

upon that they have to decide the claim of the petitioner. In the

present case, he submits, by now the committee could have

decided the claim. He is not in a position to justify as to why the

committee has taken such a long period and why some fresh

documents are required by the committee.


5.       Be that as it is, this Court finds that, it would be in the

interest of justice to direct the committee to decide the claim of

the petitioner pending before it as far as possible and in any case

by 30.09.2026.


6.       With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )



P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…