OMKAR SUBHASH SABANWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                   (1)
                                                            919 & 920.odt
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

               919 WRIT PETITION NO. 2244 OF 2026
                   OMKAR SUBHASH SABANWAD
                                VERSUS
  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
                                OTHERS
                                   …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
                                  …
                                   AND
               920 WRIT PETITION NO. 2245 OF 2026

     GAYATRI SUBHASH SABANWAD THR THE NATURAL GUARDIAN
               FATHER SUBHASH SAYABU SABANWAD
                           VERSUS
     THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND
                           OTHERS

                                   …..
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrakant R. Thorat
AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
                                   ….

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

                   DATED :      MARCH 18, 2026

ORAL ORDER (PER ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J):-

1.     Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P.

for the respondents.


2.     At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave

to add Commissioner, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune as

party respondent in both the petitions.


3.     Leave granted. The amendment is to be carried out forthwith.
                                  (2)
                                                            919 & 920.odt


4.    The petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, in peculiar circumstances and have put forth

the following prayers :-

     “A] By issuing Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate
         writ or direction in the like nature, be pleased to
         quashed and set aside the order dated 31/10/2025
         passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dharmabad, Dist.
         Nanded thereby rejected the proposal for issuance of
         Tribe Certificate in favour of the appellant as belonging
         to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.


     B] Be pleased to direct the Sub Divisional Officer,
         Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded, to issue the Tribe Certificate
         in favour of the appellant as belonging to “Koli
         Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.


     C] Or in the alternatively, be please to direct the
         respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee to accept the
         appeal of the petitioner against the impugned order
         dated 31/10/2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,
         Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded thereby rejected the proposal
         for issuance of Tribe Certificate in favour of the
         appellant as belonging to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled
         Tribe in view of u/sec. 5 (1) of the Caste Certificate Act,
         2000”.


5.     Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions

would submit that against the order dated 30.10.2025, passed by
                                    (3)
                                                             919 & 920.odt
respondent No.3 i.e. the Sub Divisional Officer, Dharmabad Tq

Dharmabad, District Nanded, thereby refusing to issue caste

certificates of belonging to “ Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe the

petitioners have preferred the appeals before the respondent

No.2/Scrutiny Committee under Section 5(1) of The Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Classes And Special Backward Category ( Regulation

of Issuance And Verification of Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter

referred to as “ the Act”). He further submit that, though the

petitioners have approached respondent No.2 on 07.11.2025, in order

to file the appeals, the concerned authority from the office of

respondent No.2 have refused to accept the same. He would further

submit that, though the appeals in both the Writ Petitions were ready

on 07.11.2025, however, the said appeals could not be filed on line

since it was informed from the office of respondent No.2 that, there

are certain issues with regard to the up-gradation of software/ portal

namely “E-Tribe Validity Portal”.



6.     Learned counsel for the petitioners beside pointing out these

aspects from the pleadings of the Writ petitions has also filed affidavits

of the petitioners thereby stating on oath that the petitioners along

with their Advocates had been to office of respondent No.2 for filing

the appeals, however, respondent No.2 neither accepted the physical
                                   (4)
                                                           919 & 920.odt
filing nor co-operated the petitioners in filing those appeals on line.

He would therefore submit that, as a result of which, the prescribed

period of limitation of 30 days in filing the appeals have expired. He,

therefore, urge that either this Court, may entertain the Writ Petitions

by setting aside the order dated 31.10.2025 passed by respondent

No.3 thereby refusing to issue caste certificates or in the alternative

respondent No.2, be directed to accept the appeals filed by the

petitioners challenging the said order physically.


7.    Per contra, learned A.G.P. submits that, admittedly, the orders

which are sought to be challenged by the petitioners by filing appeals

have been passed by respondent No.3 on 31.10.2025 therefore, the

petitioners ought to have filed appeals on line within a period of 30

days from the date of order passed by respondent No.3.       He would

further submit that, since the period of limitation have expired,

respondent No.2 cannot accept the appeals filed by the petitioners

physically, so also the respondent No.2 cannot accept the appeals on

line since those are barred by limitation.


8.     Learned A.G.P. however submits that, for want of up-gradation/

updation of the “E-Tribe Validity Portal” at the behest of added

respondent No.4, the appeals which would be filed after prescribed

period of limitation cannot be accepted on line.
                                   (5)
                                                            919 & 920.odt
9.      Learned A.G.P. by placing on record the circular dated

14.10.2025 by which the on line filing of the appeals under Section 5

sub section (1) of the Act has been recently introduced, would submit

that the petitioners ought to have availed the said facility. Learned

A.G.P. however, fairly concedes that by virtue of introduction of new

on-line system, it is not only respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee,

but several other Scrutiny Committees are facing the same problem of

non-acceptance of the appeals, which are filed beyond the period of

limitation.


10.   Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

learned A.G.P., we find that the petitioners have categorically stated on

affidavits filed before this Court stating that no sooner the orders were

passed by respondent No.3 on 31.10.2025, the petitioners along with

concerned Advocates had been to the office of respondent No.2, on

07.11.2025, for filing the appeals.      However, the same were not

accepted physically nor respondent No.2 was able to accept the filing

on line. Having regard to the categorical statements made on oath

that the petitioners had approached the Scrutiny Committee within a

prescribed period of limitation of 30 days and due to the technical

issue, their appeals could not be accepted on line. We are inclined to

entertain these Writ Petitions.



11.   We find that, since the matters pertains to social status, in
                                     (6)
                                                                    919 & 920.odt
absence of any express bar about applicability of the provision of

Limitation Act, 1963, in filing the appeals under Section 5(1) of the

Act, respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee ought to have accepted the

filing of appeals by the petitioners and thereafter could have

determined as to whether the delay occurred in filing the appeals

deserves to be condoned or not. We are of the considered view that

respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee has totally ignored this vital

aspect regarding applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.


12.    In that view of the matter, it would be expedient in the interest

of justice to direct the added respondent No.4 to forthwith up-grade/

update the software of “ E-Tribe Validity Portal”, so as to facilitate the

filing of appeals after the prescribed period of limitation subject to

satisfaction as to whether the delay deserves to be condoned for want

of    sufficient   cause.     We   also    find   that   if   for     want    of

up-gradation/updation of the software, respondent No.2/ Scrutiny

Committee goes on refusing to accept the filing of appeals after

prescribed period of limitation, this Court would be flooded with the

Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.


13.    Thus, in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we direct

respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee to accept the appeals filed by

the petitioners physically.


14.    We however, make it clear that mere permission to the
                                  (7)
                                                          919 & 920.odt
petitioners to file the appeals physically, does not mean that the

Scrutiny Committee is precluded from ascertaining sufficient cause for

delay in filing the appeals. The Scrutiny Committee before deciding

the appeals on merits would first ascertain as to whether delay caused

in filing appeals deserves to be condoned.


15.    The Writ Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no

order as to costs.



(ABASAHEB D. SHINDE)                    (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
      JUDGE                                   JUDGE



YSK/