Bombay High Court

VAISHALI KESHAV KADAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

No action shall be taken against the petitioners during the pendency of their appeals and for 30 days thereafter, and the Committee must note the amended provision of Section 6(b).

Summary

Petitioners Vaishali K. Kadam and Vilas K. Landge filed writ petitions seeking a direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, to register their appeals against orders that invalidated their tribe claims. The State of Maharashtra opposed the petitions. 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 an appeal is decided. The Court observed that the Commissioner was now registering the appeals and held that no adverse action could be taken against the petitioners during the pendency of the appeals and for 30 days thereafter. The Court further directed the Committee to note the amended provision, and the writ petitions were disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the Divisional Commissioner is obligated to register the petitioners' appeals challenging the invalidation of their tribe claims.
Whether Section 6(b) of the applicable statute bars any action against the petitioners during the pendency of the appeal and for 30 days after the appeal is decided.

Subjects

tribe claim
writ petition
Section 6(b)
appeal registration
scheduled tribe
Maharashtra

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42255-DB


                                                 1              8-wp 11905-2026+.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 11905 OF 2026

                 Vaishali Keshav Kadam                                     .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Principal Secretary And Others                .. Respondents

                                              AND
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 11945 OF 2026

                 Vilas Kashinath Landge                                    .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 The State Of Maharashtra
                 Through Its Principal Secretary And Others                .. Respondents

                 Mr. S. M. Vibhute, Advocate h/f Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar,
                 Advocate for Petitioners.
                 Mr. N. S. Takale & Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP’s for Respondents-
                 State in respective matters.

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

                 1.     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
                                  2             8-wp 11905-2026+.odt


registering the appeals.


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 inserted 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, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…