Bombay High Court

SANDEEP S/O MARUTI HOLKARversusTHE STATA OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY DEPT. OF TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANR

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M S KARNIK S M MODAK

Holding

A pending show‑cause notice against a relative does not invalidate that relative’s previously issued certificate, and the petitioner is entitled to a Scheduled Tribe certificate.

Summary

The petitioner, Sandeep Holkar, challenged the rejection of his claim to belong to the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, arguing that his close blood relative, Dattatray Arjun Holkar, had been issued a valid caste certificate in 2003 and his cousin in 2009. The Scrutiny Committee had denied his claim, citing a pending show‑cause notice against his uncle. The Court examined prior decisions, notably Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale and Shweta Balaji Isankar, and held that a pending show‑cause notice does not automatically invalidate an already issued certificate. It found the petitioner’s relationship established and the relative’s certificate genuine, directing the Committee to issue a certificate to the petitioner within six weeks. Consequently, the petition succeeded and was disposed of in the petitioner’s favour.

Issues considered

The effect of a pending show‑cause notice on the validity of a previously issued Scheduled Tribe certificate for a relative
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certificate based on a relative’s earlier certificate
Procedural compliance of the Scrutiny Committee in rejecting the petitioner’s claim

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe certificate
Caste verification
Show cause notice
Tribal Development Department
Maharashtra
Judicial review
Validity certificate

Judgment

Ingale 10-wp-1533-23.odt

Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
URMILA by URMILA
PRAMOD CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD INGALE
Date:
INGALE 2026.01.29
12:11:58 +0530

WRIT PETITION NO. 1533 OF 2023

Sandeep S/o Maruti Holkar
Age 55 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Om Kunjir Colony,
Kate Vasti, Pimpale Saudagar, Pune
District Pune … Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

2. Scheduled Tribes Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,
Through its Member Secretary,
Pune Division, Pune

3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
Office of Deputy Commissioner,
Headquarter, Pimpri Chinchwad,
Pune .… Respondents

****
Ms. Akshara Sharad Madake h/f Ms.Sangita Shahu Survase, for the
Petitioner.
Ms.Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms.Rupali Andhare, Law Officer- Respondent No.2, present.

****

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2026

1
Ingale 10-wp-1533-23.odt

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J. ) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned

Additional Government Pleader for the State. The challenge in

this Petition is to the rejection of the caste claim of the Petitioner

as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’ by the Respondent

No.2 – Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune (for

short ‘the Scrutiny Committee’). The principal contention of the

Petitioner is that his real uncle-Dattatray Arjun Holkar, a close

blood relative has been issued with certificate of validity as

belonging to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe as far back as on

02/07/2003. It is also submitted that the Petitioner’s cousin from

the paternal side- Bhagyashree Bhausaheb Holkar has been issued

with a certificate of validity as far back as on 16/06/2009.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision

of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others1 in support of her

submission that if a close relative has been issued a certificate of

validity, in that case, the Petitioner should not be deprived of the

validity certificate. Paragraph 4 of the said decision reads thus :

1 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401

2
Ingale 10-wp-1533-23.odt

“We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the
petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat- Nomadic
Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on the
basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar
Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the
Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines
provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound
principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by
blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been
confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why
public time or money should be spent in the committee testing the
same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the
Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of
such relation has been obtained by fraud.”

3. Learned AGP for the Respondent-State in support of

the impugned order submitted that the certificate of validity

granted to the Petitioner’s real uncle was without following the

proper procedure and without there being Vigilance Cell enquiry.

In any case, it is submitted that since a show cause notice has been

issued to Dattatray Arjun Holkar, the present Petition should be

dismissed for the reasons recorded by the Scrutiny Committee.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the

decision of this Court in Shweta Balaji Isankar Vs. State of

Maharashtra and ors2 in the context of show cause notice which is

2 2018 DGLS (Bom.) 2249

3
Ingale 10-wp-1533-23.odt

issued to a close blood relative and its effect on claim made by the

Claimant on the basis of such validity certificate. Paragraphs 3 and

4 of the decision of Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra) reads thus :

“3. On such a finding being rendered by the Committee, we
called upon the learned AGP on the earlier two occasions to
produce the record. We also indicated to the learned AGP as to
how the certificate of validity is denied to the petitioner though
she has established her relationship with the said Govind and
only on the ground that a show cause notice has been issued, but
no proceedings in furtherance thereof came to be initiated till
date. The learned AGP sought time to file an affidavit. Now, the
Joint Commissioner, Schedule Tribe Scrutiny Committee,
Aurangabad has filed an affidavit in reply. That is taken on
record. The said affidavit admits that the certificate of validity
has been issued to her real uncle and cousin uncle of the
petitioner. The affidavit admits that the petitioner relies heavily
on these two documents, but clarifies that there is a suppression
detected from the original record of the certificate holder and
that is how a show cause notice has been issued to Govind. The
show cause notice could not be taken to its logical end on
account of the huge pendency of cases before this Committee. In
all, 7,000 matters were pending on the date when this Joint
Commissioner took charge and he has reduced the pendency by
2500 cases being decided. In the circumstances, he says that
appropriate orders and directions be issued by this Court.
4. We are not impressed by this explanation and the justification
not to proceed against a person who has perpetrated a fraud on
the public. If it is a serious allegation and which is termed as
fraud, then, it should have been taken to its logical end. Mere
issuance of a show cause notice in the present case would not
suffice for there are two certificates of validity relied upon. The
only reason assigned in the impugned order to discard them,
cannot be sustained The justification in the above affidavit is also
not enough to straightaway discard the certificates of validity
issued in the family. It is conceded that other reasons assigned in
the impugned order cannot be supported in law.”

5. In the present case, we find that the Petitioner has

established his relationship with Dattatray Arjun Holkar who is a

4
Ingale 10-wp-1533-23.odt

close blood relative of the Petitioner and there is no dispute to that

effect. Further, there is no dispute that the validity certificate

dated 02/07/2003 was issued by the Scrutiny Committee to

Dattatray Arjun Holkar and that it is a genuine document. The

show cause notice which is issued to Dattatray Arjun Holkar

undoubtedly will be taken to its logical conclusion. The certificate

of validity was issued to Dattatray Arjun Holkar as far back as on

02/07/2003. Merely because a show cause notice has been issued

and is pending adjudication is no ground to discard such certificate

of validity. Needless to mention that it is obviously open for the

Scrutiny Committee to take the show cause notice to its logical

conclusion in accordance with law. In the event, Dattatray Arjun

Holkar’s claim is invalidated, the necessary consequence on the

Petitioner’s certificate of validity shall undoubtedly follow.

6. The decision in the Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra)

supports the Petitioner’s case. The Petition therefore succeeds.

7. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a

certificate of validity to the Petitioner as belonging to ‘Koli

Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’ within a period of 6 weeks from the

date of communication of this order.

5
Ingale 10-wp-1533-23.odt

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of.

(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…