Bombay High Court

ATMARAM PANDURANG CHORMALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SANDIPKUMAR C MORE ABASAHEB D SHINDE

Holding

The order of the Tribe Scrutiny Committee is quashed and the petitioner’s tribe claim must be reconsidered afresh.

Summary

The petitioner, Atmaram Pandurang ChorMale, challenged the order of the Tribe Scrutiny Committee that rejected his claim of belonging to the Dhanwar Scheduled Tribe. He submitted two documents—a 1945 birth certificate of his father and a 1951 mortgage deed of his grandfather indicating the Dhanwar caste—asserting their probative value. The State argued that the 1945 document was merely an extract without source verification and that the 1951 document was introduced after the Committee’s decision. The Court observed that the petitioner sought to place the oldest documents on record after the Committee had already decided, warranting a fresh review. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order, remanded the matter for a fresh determination with due opportunity to the petitioner, and directed an expeditious decision within one year. The writ petition was partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the Tribe Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe claim by discarding the submitted documents
Whether the order of the Tribe Scrutiny Committee can be quashed and the claim reconsidered afresh

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe
tribe claim
Tribe Scrutiny Committee
writ petition
quashing order
fresh consideration
caste verification

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:4455-DB


                                     1                   1030 wp 1793-20

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          1030 WRIT PETITION NO. 1793 OF 2020

                           ATMARAM PANDURANG CHORMALE
                                          VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                             ...
            Mr. Sonavane Narendra D., Advocate for the Petitioner
            Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent-State
            Mr. Deshbhushan Madkar h/f Mr. Manorkar Deepak S., Advocate
            for Respondent No.3
                                             ….

                                   CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                           ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

                                   DATED : 28/01/2026
            P. C. :

            1.    Heard.


            2.    Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
            the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.


            3.    By the present writ petition, the petitioner takes an exception
            to the order dated 21/11/2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Tribe
            Scrutiny Committee, by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of
            belonging to “Dhanwar” Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.


            4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to
            the Vigilance Cell report, the reply filed by the petitioner on
            20/09/2019 sets out the details furnished by the petitioner in
            respect of two documents; one pertaining to his father’s birth
            certificate of the year 1945 and the another pertaining to the year
                           2                   1030 wp 1793-20

1951, in the nature of a mortgage deed executed in the name of his
grand father showing the caste as /Dhanwar”. He submits that
both these documents having probative value, have been discarded
by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee.


5.    Per contra, learned AGP submits that, insofar as the
document pertaining to the year 1945 is concerned, the same is
only an extract and in the absence of disclosure of the source of the
said document, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom.
So far as documents pertaining to the year 1951, the same is
sought to be relied upon post decision of petitioner’s tribe claim.


6.    Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has
made an application to place on record the oldest documents to
substantiate his tribe claim, however, the same is admittedly
sought to be placed on record subsequent to the decision arrived at
by the Scrutiny Committee.


7.    In that view of the matter, we are inclined to remand the
matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration in
the light of the observations made herein above. We, therefore, pass
the following order.
                                ORDER
     i)     The writ petition is partly allowed.

     ii)    The impugned order dated 21/11/2019 passed
            by Respondent No. 2 – Tribe Scrutiny Committee
            is hereby quashed and set aside.

     iii)   The Respondent – Tribe Scrutiny Committee is
            directed to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner
                             3                   1030 wp 1793-20

              afresh, after giving sufficient opportunity to the
              petitioner to establish his caste claim.

        vi)   Considering the fact that the matter pertains to
              the year 2020, we direct the Scrutiny Committee
              to make an endeavour to decide the tribe claim of
              the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and
              preferably within a period of one year from today.

        v)    With these directions, the writ petition stands
              disposed of.




( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )             ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

VS Maind/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…