Bombay High Court
BHOOMI BHAGANNA KOLI MINOR THR. LEGAL GUARDING BHAGANNA JAGDEV KOLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing that the validity certificate of Somanna Lakanna Koli be taken into account.
Summary
The petitioners, claiming membership in the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, possessed caste certificates that were examined by the State's Caste Scrutiny Committee, which, after a vigilance inquiry, invalidated their tribal status on the ground of alleged interpolation in their genealogical records. The petitioners later discovered that a blood relative, Somanna Lakanna Koli, had been issued a validity certificate for the same tribe in 2007, and argued that this should preclude the Committee from denying their claim. The High Court examined the submissions, noted that the Committee had not considered the relative's earlier certificate, and held that the impugned orders were unsound. Consequently, the Court quashed the Committee’s orders, restored the petitioners’ tribal claims, and remanded the matter to the Committee for fresh consideration, directing it to factor in Somanna Lakanna Koli’s certificate. The Court also kept in abeyance a separate cancellation of the petitioner’s college admission pending the fresh determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee erred in invalidating the petitioners' Scheduled Tribe claim without considering the validity certificate issued to a blood relative.
- Whether the existence of a validity certificate for a relative precludes the Committee from denying tribal status to the petitioners.
- Whether the admission cancellation of the petitioner should be stayed pending the fresh consideration of the tribal claim.
Legislation cited
- Right to Information Act — s. 2005
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe
- Caste certificate
- Caste Scrutiny Committee
- Validity certificate
- Right to Information Act
- Admission cancellation
- Judicial review
Judgment
502-IA-10986-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13891 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10986 OF 2025
Bhoomi Bhaganna Koli ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13892 OF 2024
Bhaganna Jagadev Koli ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Sachinkumar Rajepandhare, for the Petitioner/Applicant.
Mr. Atul P. Vanarase, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Vinod Y. Bhide h/f. Mr. Sandeep Y Mahajan, for the Respondent No.3.
Mr. Nagesh Chavan, for the Respondent No.4.
Ms. Rupali Andhare, Law Oicer, Respondent No.2 is present.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : September 03, 2026.
P. C. :
1. Since common submissions are advanced by both the sides and
the subject-matter of both the petitions is the orders passed by
Respondent No.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe
claims of the father and daughter, the petitions are decided by this
Gaikwad RD 1 of 6
502-IA-10986-2025.doc
common order. By consent of both sides, the petitions are taken up for
hearing at the admission stage.
2. The Petitioners claimed to be belonging to the "Koli Mahadev"
Scheduled Tribe. They were holding valid caste certiicates issued by
the Competent Authority. Their caste certiicates were referred to the
Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee for veriication. The Scrutiny
Committee directed the vigilance inquiry. The Vigilance Cell submitted
its report. The Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee, by considering
the documents on record and the Vigilance Cell report, passed the
impugned orders invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioners.
3. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 13891 of 2024-Bhoomi
Bhaganna Koli is a student. This Court, by order dated 9 th October 2024,
protected her admission to the course of B.Tech Computer Engineering.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners that
the Petitioners recently came to know that, one of their blood relatives,
namely Somanna Lakanna Koli, has been issued a validity certiicate
towards "Koli Mahadev" by the Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee.
The copy of the said validity certiicate was received by them pursuant
to an application moved under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He
circulated the genealogy across the bar to show that the Petitioners are
the blood relatives of the said Somanna Lakanna Koli. He submits that it
Gaikwad RD 2 of 6
502-IA-10986-2025.doc
is the settled position in law that if one of the blood relatives receives
the validity certiicate, the other blood relatives cannot be deprived of
the validity certiicate by the Scrutiny Committee. He submits that, the
impugned orders be set aside and the matters be remanded back to
Respondent No. 2–Committee for fresh consideration.
5. The learned AGP appearing for Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny
Committee, on instructions , from the oicer of the Respondent No.2-
Committee, submits that in case the matter is remanded back for fresh
consideration, the Committee will examine the aspect of issuance of
validity to the said Somanna Lakanna Koli and also examine whether the
said Somanna is related to the Petitioners, and thereafter pass
appropriate orders.
6. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5—College in
Writ Petition No. 13891 of 2024 submits that appropriate orders may be
passed.
7. The Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee invalidated the tribe
claim of the Petitioners on the ground that there was interpolation in
the record of Lakappa, Tukaram, Namdeo and Khandappa, who are the
blood relatives of the Petitioners. The genealogy shows that, Lakappa is
the father of Sonamma. However, Somanna is issued the validity
certiicate. From the copy of the genealogy tendered across the bar by
Gaikwad RD 3 of 6
502-IA-10986-2025.doc
the learned counsel for the Petitioners, prima facie it appears that the
Petitioners are related to the said Somanna. The date of the certiicate
of validity in the name of Somanna Lakanna Koli is 16 th November 2007,
which is admittedly before passing of the impugned orders.
8. The impugned orders no where show that Respondent No. 2–
Scrutiny Committee had considered the validity issued to the Somanna
Lakanna Koli. Undisputedly, the copy of the validity certiicate of
Somanna Lakanna Koli shows that, the same was issued by Respondent
No. 2–Committee itself.
9. Thus, in view of the above submissions and the factual aspects of
the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned orders and
remand the matters back to Respondent No. 2–Committee for fresh
consideration in accordance with law, after considering the aspect of
validity of Somanna Lakanna Koli.
10. It is informed that the admission of the Petitioner in Writ Petition
No.13891 of 2024 has been cancelled by the Respondent No. 4 by
communication dated 10th March 2026. Since we are remanding back
the matter to the Respondent No.2-Committee, the communication
dated 10th March 2026 issued by Respondent No. 4 rejecting the
admissions of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13891 of 2024 is
required to be kept in abeyance.
Gaikwad RD 4 of 6
502-IA-10986-2025.doc
11. In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned orders dated 9th September 2024 and 13th
September 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny
Committee are quashed and set aside.
(iii) The tribe claims of the Petitioners are restored on the ile of
Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration
and decision in accordance with law, after considering the
validity of Somanna Lakanna Koli dated 16th November 2007.
(iv) The Committee is directed to reconsider and decide the
Petitioners' claim within a period of three (3) weeks from
today.
(v) The representative or lawyer of the Petitioners shall appear
before Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee on 7 th
September 2026 at 11:00 AM.
(vi) The communication dated 10th March 2026 issued by
Respondent No. 4 cancelling the admission of the Petitioner-
Bhoomi Bhaganna Koli is kept in abeyance for a period of four
(4) weeks from today.
(vii) In the event, the Scrutiny Committee invalidates the claim of
Gaikwad RD 5 of 6
502-IA-10986-2025.doc
the Petitioners, the Petitioners will be at liberty to challenge
the same.
(viii) Both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(ix) In view of disposal of Writ Petition No.13891 of 2024, the
Interim application pending therein does not survive and
stands disposed of.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.09.03
19:29:26
+0530
Gaikwad RD 6 of 6
Checking your session…