Bombay High Court
AJINKYA LAHU KADAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Partly Allowed
Holding
The Court held that, following Supreme Court precedent, the Scrutiny Committee must issue a Tribe Validity Certificate to the petitioner because his paternal blood relatives have been granted such certificates after a lawful inquiry.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajinkya Lahu Kadam, sought to quash an order of the Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee that rejected his claim for a Thakar tribe validity certificate. He argued that his paternal blood relatives had previously been granted such certificates after the Court directed the Committee to do so in earlier writ petitions. The Committee had rejected his claim citing inconsistencies in historical caste entries in school and revenue records. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra, the High Court held that once a lawful inquiry confirms a blood‑relative’s eligibility, the Committee must issue the certificate. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order, directed issuance of the certificate to the petitioner, and allowed the writ petition in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner’s tribe validity certificate claim despite issuance to his paternal blood relatives.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra applies to the present case.
- Whether historical caste entries showing "Hindu Maratha" or "Thakkar Bhat" justify denial of the certificate.
- Whether a lawful inquiry and the issuance of certificates to blood relatives obligate the Committee to grant the petitioner’s certificate.
Subjects
- Tribe Validity Certificate
- Scheduled Tribe
- Scrutiny Committee
- Paternal blood relatives
- Quash order
- Supreme Court precedent
- Maharashtra
Judgment
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12265 OF 2026
Ajinkya Lahu Kadam
Age : 34 years, Occu: Student,
R/at. Bhatnimgaon, Post Bhandgaon,
Taluka Indapur, District Pune,
Pune – 413 103. …Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee,
Pune Division, Pune,
Through its Member Secretary,
5th Floor, C Wing, Kapil Towers,
Pune – 411 001.
3. The Principal
Arts, Science and Commerce College
Indapur, District Pune,
…Respondents
Pune – 413 106.
Mr. Harsh P. Dedhia, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Pande, “B” Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM: R. I. CHAGLA AND
Digitally
signed by
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
2026.09.23
16:35:38
DATED: 21st SEPTEMBER 2026.
+0530
Page 1 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
ORDER :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of parties.
2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and
setting aside of an impugned Order dated 1 st July, 2023, passed by
Respondent No. 2–Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Pune
Division, Pune (hereinafter referred to as, "Scrutiny Committee" for
short), invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner had applied before Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny
Committee for verification of his tribe certificate, claiming to
belong to the Thakar tribe in the year 2013. The Respondent No. 2
Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim and cancelled the tribe
certificate on the ground that the tribe certificate was not in the
prescribed format, while granting liberty to the Petitioner to obtain
a prescribed Form C certificate and submit a fresh claim.
4. Respondent No. 3, Principal of Arts, Science, and Commerce
College, Indapur, District Pune, forwarded the Petitioner's fresh
tribe certificate to Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee for
Page 2 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
verification. The Petitioner filed a fresh application along with all
necessary documents to prove his claim in November 2022.
5. Accordingly, the validity proceedings were registered before
Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee as Case No. 93 of 2022.
The Police Vigilance Department submitted an Inquiry Report on
28th February, 2023, after tracing blood relatives and examining
caste entries in school, birth, and death registers.
6. Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee issued a notice on 4 th
July, 2023, calling upon the Petitioner to appear and produce
relevant documents in support of his tribe claim. The Petitioner
produced documents as sought by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny
Committee, which included birth and death register entries
relating to his blood relatives from 1934 onwards.
7. The Petitioner places reliance upon Orders of this Court in
Writ Petition No. 2394 of 2023, filed by Ankush Gulabrao Kadam,
and Writ Petition No. 2658 of 2024, filed by Digvijay Ankush
Kadam, who are the paternal blood relatives of the Petitioner, and
by which Orders the Tribe Validity Certificates were directed to be
Page 3 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
issued by the Scrutiny Committee to the Petitioner's said paternal
blood relatives.
8. Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned
Order dated 1st July 2026, in Case No. 93 of 2022, rejecting the
Petitioner's claim for a Tribe Validity Certificate. Accordingly, the
present Writ Petition has been filed.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has
tendered a genealogy tree showing the Petitioner's blood relatives,
including the said paternal blood relatives to whom the Tribe
Validity Certificate was directed to be issued by this Court vide
Orders passed in the respective Petitions filed by them.
10. Mr. Dedhia, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, referred
to the Orders dated 11th June 2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos.
2394 of 2023 and 2658 of 2024 in the case of Petitions filed by
Ankush Gulabrao Kadam and Digvijay Ankush Kadam, respectively,
wherein this Court had found that the Petitioners had established
that their blood relations from the paternal side were granted Tribe
Validity Certificates. Accordingly, this Court quashed and set aside
the impugned Orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee and
Page 4 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
allowed the Writ Petitions. He submitted that a similar Order is
required to be passed in the present case, considering that those
Writ Petitions had been filed by the present Petitioner's blood
relatives.
11. Mr. Dedhia, submitted that, in spite of citing the Orders
passed by this Court, by which the paternal blood relatives' Tribe
Validity Certificates were directed to be issued, this has been
disregarded by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee while
referring to certain inconsistencies in the records which had been
submitted in respect of certain paternal blood relatives. He
submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in
Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of
Maharashtra and Others1, that where the Scrutiny Committee has
been satisfied that the person in whose favor the Tribe Validity
Certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the Applicant, and
a lawful inquiry has been conducted before issuing the validity
certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue the validity
certificate. He has accordingly sought for the prayers in the
Petition to be granted.
1(2023 16 SCC 41)
Page 5 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
12. Mr. Pande, learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1
and 2–Scrutiny Committee, has supported the impugned Order.
He submitted that findings of the impugned Order show that there
were blood relatives of the Applicant whose school and revenue
records from 1934, 1938, 1959, 1982, 1984, and 1985 contained
caste entries as "Hindu Maratha," "Maratha," and "Thakkar Bhat".
In the grandfather's service book for 1927 to 1946, the caste was
recorded as "Hindu Maratha". A cousin grandfather's service book
also recorded the caste as "Hindu Maratha".
13. Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee has accordingly held
that entries from this period are older, and their probative and
evidentiary value is high. The Petitioner had not submitted
evidence containing records inconsistent with the said claim to the
committee during the inquiry and hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Pande
submitted that Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee was justified
in passing the impugned Order invalidating the tribe validity claim
of the Petitioner. He submitted that the Writ Petition is without
merit and be dismissed.
14. Having considered the submissions, in our view, this Writ
Petition is covered by the Order dated 27 th August 2026 passed in
Page 6 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
Writ Petition No. 10712 of 2026 (Rushank Sitaram Kataskar, Minor,
through Father and Natural Guardian Sitaram Vitthal Kataskar v.
State of Maharashtra and Another).
15. This Court, in a similar case as the present, had considered
that the Petitioner's paternal blood relatives had been issued Tribe
Validity Certificates. Though there were show-cause notices issued
alleging fraud, this Court held that this would not suffice where
validity certificates have been issued by the competent Scrutiny
Committee to these blood relatives of the Petitioner on the paternal
side.
16. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra
Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) that upon the
Scrutiny Committee having been satisfied that the person in whose
favor the Tribe Validity Certificate has been issued is a blood
relative of the applicant, and a lawful inquiry has been conducted
before issuing the validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will
have to issue the validity certificate.
17. This Court, in the aforesaid decision, had also, in the
operative part of the Order, while allowing the Writ Petition,
Page 7 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
directed that if any of the validity holders on whom the Petitioner
before this Court has relied upon for claiming validity suffer
invalidation in the reopened cases, Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny
Committee would be at liberty to reopen the Petitioner's case as
well. The consequences suffered by those candidates whose claims
are invalidated (after reopening of the case) would befall this
Petitioner as well.
18. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner's paternal
blood relatives have been issued Tribe Validity Certificates to the
effect that they belong to the "Thakar" tribe, to which the present
Petitioner also claims to belong.
19. These paternal blood relatives had filed Writ Petitions in this
Court which have been adverted to above. In these Writ Petitions,
this Court had set aside the Orders passed by the Scrutiny
Committee and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue Tribe
Validity Certificates to them. The Orders have also been annexed to
the present petition at Exhibit K.
20. The reason for disregarding the Tribe Validity Certificates
issued to the Petitioner's paternal blood relatives is merely on the
Page 8 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
ground that there are certain blood relatives of the Petitioner
whose school and revenue records show a different tribe. Given the
settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra
Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), we do not
accept such a reason for disregarding the Tribe Validity Certificates
issued to the Petitioner's blood relatives upon the conduct of a
lawful inquiry.
21. We accordingly pass a similar Order as has been passed by
this Court in Rushank Sitaram Kataskar (supra):
:: O R D E R ::
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed;
(ii) The impugned Order dated 1st July 2026 passed by
Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee in Case No. 93 of 2022
is quashed and set aside;
(iii) The Tribe Validity Certificate in respect of the “Thakar
Tribe” shall be issued by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny
Committee to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks
from the date of this Order;
Page 9 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC
(iv) If any of the validity holders on whom the Petitioner
before this Court has relied upon for claiming validity, suffer
invalidation in the reopened cases, Respondent No. 2–
Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to reopen the
Petitioner's case as well, and the consequences suffered by
those candidates whose claims are invalidated (after
reopening of the case), would befall on this Petitioner as well;
(v) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the
above terms;
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (R. I. CHAGLA, J.)
Page 10 of 10
Rajeshri Aher
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.