Bombay High Court
SANDESH NANAJI GANGURDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to a Certificate of Validity as belonging to the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, relying on the valid certificates of his father and brother.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandesh Nanaji Gangurde, challenged the High Court's order that invalidated his claim to belong to the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. He argued that his father and blood brother already hold valid caste validity certificates, and the Scrutiny Committee had not raised any fraud or procedural issues against those certificates. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that a claimant may rely on the validity certificates of blood relatives if the relationship is established, the Court examined the genealogy and found no dispute. The Court held that, in the absence of any indication of fraud or procedural lapse, the petitioner is entitled to the same caste validity certificate as his relatives. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, directing the issuance of a Certificate of Validity for the petitioner within six weeks, subject to any future adverse findings against the relatives' certificates.
Issues considered
- Whether a petitioner can obtain a caste validity certificate based on certificates already granted to his father and blood brother.
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee must re‑examine the caste claim when the relationship to a certified relative is established and no fraud is alleged.
- Whether the High Court's order invalidating the petitioner’s caste claim was justified in the absence of any procedural irregularities.
Subjects
- caste validity certificate
- Scheduled Tribe
- Koli Mahadev
- Scrutiny Committee
- blood relative
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
INGLE 19-wp-1699-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
URMILA by URMILA
PRAMOD CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PRAMOD INGALE
Date:
INGALE 2026.01.09
13:09:32 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 1699 OF 2021
Sandesh Nanaji Gangurde … Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra and ors. … Respondents
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w Mr. Siddhant Sawai, Ms. Prajakta Pashte, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Add. GP a/w Mr. Ketan Joshi ‘B’ Panel, for the
Respondent-State.
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK AND
S.M.MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 8th JANUARY 2026
ORAL ORDER (M.S.KARNIK, J.) :-
1. Heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr.
Walimbe, learned Addl. GP appearing for the Respondent-State.
2. Mr. Walimbe learned Addl. GP vehemently opposes the Petition.
3. The challenge in this Petition is to the invalidation of the caste
claim of the Petitioner as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’.
Inviting our attention to the impugned order, which according to learned
AGP is a well reasoned order, it is submitted that Caste Validity Certificate
of the Petitioner’s father which is at page no. 48 of the paper-book and that
of the Petitioner’s blood brother which is at page 49 of the paper-book were
granted on the basis of some misconception as seen from the reasons
1/5
INGLE 19-wp-1699-21.doc
mentioned in the impugned order. As a matter of fact, the Certificates of
Validity issued in favour of the Petitioner’s father as well as his brother are
still in force. The Scrutiny Committee has not issued any notice to the
Petitioner’s father or his brother questioning the grant of Certificates of
Validity on the ground of fraud/misrepresentation or any other permissible
ground.
4. In such a view of the matter, having issued Certificates of Validity
in favour of the Petitioner’s father and brother as belonging ‘Koli Mahadev,
Scheduled Tribe’, there was no reason to deprive the Petitioner of the
benefit of the claim for grant of Certificate of Validity.
5. We draw support from the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.1 , in particular paragraph 24 which reads
thus :
“24. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found
in many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies
upon caste vsalidity certificates issued to his blood relatives.
Obviously, such a validity certificate has to be issued either by
the Scrutiny Committee constituted in terms of the directions
issued in Madhuri Patil Vs. Commissioner, Tribal Development
(1994) 6 SCC 241 or constituted under the Rules framed under
the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must
ascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly, the
Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whether the applicant
1 (2023) 16 SCC 415
2/5
INGLE 19-wp-1699-21.doc
has established that the person to whom the validity certificate
relied upon by him has been issued is his blood relative. For that
purpose, the applicant must establish his precise and exact
relationship with the person to whom the validity certificate has
been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to be made by the
Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificate has been
granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the Scrutiny
Committee concerned after holding due enquiry and following
due procedure.”
6. This Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others 2 in paragraph 4 observed
thus :
“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. “
7. The relationship of the Petitioner with his father or with his
blood brother is not in dispute and the genealogy to that extent has been
2 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401
3/5
INGLE 19-wp-1699-21.doc
established before the Scrutiny Committee. That the Certificate is genuine
and also not in dispute. Further there is nothing on record to indicate that
the said Certificates were granted to the concerned without holding enquiry
and following due procedure. Thus, we find that Certificate of Validity as
belonging to the ‘Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’ having been issued in
favour of the close blood relatives of the Petitioner, even the Petitioner is
entitled to have his caste claim validated by the Scrutiny Committee. The
Writ Petition is therefore allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) & (b).
8. The Certificate of Validity be issued expeditiously as belonging to ‘Koli
Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’ and in any case, within a period of 6 weeks from
the date of communication of this order.
9. Needless to mention that it is open for the Scrutiny Committee to
proceed against Caste Validity Certificates of the concerned blood relatives
on the ground permissible in accordance with law. The issuance of the
Caste Validity Certificate to the Petitioner shall obviously be subject to the
outcome of the decision of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of caste
validity claim of the concerned blood relatives.
10. In case if any adverse order is passed in respect of such Certificates of
Validity issued to the close blood relatives, obviously, the same
consequences will follow as regards the Certificate of Validity which is
granted to the Petitioner.
4/5
INGLE 19-wp-1699-21.doc
11. Reserving the said liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the above
terms.
(S.M.MODAK, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
5/5
Checking your session…