NISHIKANT DNYANESHWAR VISHWEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:919-DB
                                          1                    939.WP.2319-2023.doc



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 2319 OF 2013
                                     WITH
                      CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2115 OF 2025

             1.       Nishikant Dnyaneshwar Vishwe
                      Age : 27 years, Occu.Student,
                      R/o, Padhegaon, Tq.Shrirampur,
                      Presently residing at RBI colony,
                      F11/3, Sector 7, CBD Belapur,
                      Navi Mumbai.                                 ...Petitioner

                                      VERSUS

                      The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                      Department of Tribal Development,
                      Mantralaya,Mumbai-32
                      Through Its Secretary               ...Respondents

                                        ******

                  Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Anil S. Golegaonkar
                   AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya
                                       ******

                                CORAM         :   SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                                  ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
                                   DATE       :   08th JANUARY 2026


             FINAL ORDER : ( PER :ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

             .        Heard.

             2.       By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is taking an

             exception to the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the
                          2                       939.WP.2319-2023.doc



respondent       No.2/Tribe     Scrutiny   Committee           thereby

invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to

‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.


3.   Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribe

Scrutiny Committee committed an error by rejecting the tribe

claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled

Tribe despite, there being su;cient material on record

including the validity certi<cate issued in favour of his cousin

brother   viz.   Ranjak   son    of   Babasaheb    Vishwe         dated

15.04.2005 issued by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee itself. To

substantiate the relationship of the petitioner with the said

validity holder Ranjak, the learned counsel for the petitioner

invited our attention to the genealogy to show that, Namdev

has four sons viz. Prabhakar, Babasaheb, Dnyaneshwar and

Ganpat.    He would submit that the petitioner is son of

Dnyaneshwar whereas, said validity holder Ranjak is son of

Babasaheb and being a cousin brother of validity holder, the

Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have granted validity

certi<cate to the petitioner.


4.   Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our
                        3                      939.WP.2319-2023.doc



attention to the documents annexed with the Civil Application

and submits that one Padmakar Babasaheb Vishwe who, is

cousin brother of the petitioner has also been granted validity

by this Court by an order dated 16.03.2017 in Writ Petition

No.15 of 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also

relied upon the a;davit <led by one-Sangita Babasaheb

Vishwe to submit that, the genealogy alongwith her a;davit

would depict that said Padmakar, Sangita and Ranjak are

cousin brothers of the petitioner and since, all of them have

been granted validites, the petitioner deserves to be granted

the validity certi<cate of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled

Tribe.


5.   Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit

that, even from the said genealogy it could be seen that

another uncle of petitioner viz. Ganpat who is having three

children viz. Sonali, Pravin and Nilesh. Out of them, Pravin and

Nilesh had <led Writ Petition No.6397 of 2007 challenging

the order of invalidation of their caste claims and the matter

had reached upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and after the

matter being remanded back to this Court, this Court by
                         4                        939.WP.2319-2023.doc



judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 allowed the said Writ

Petition <led by Pravin and Nilesh (supra) thereby, remanding

the matter back to the Tribe Scrutiny Committee and Tribe

Scrutiny   Committee     on    30.03.2015       and      06.04.2015

respectively has issued caste validity certi<cates in their

favour and this according to learned counsel for the petitioner

is one more facet that supports the case of petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, relying on the

validities granted in favour of Padmakar, Pravin and Nilesh

would submit that, petitioner deserves to be granted validity.


6.   Per   contra,   learned   AGP     would    submit     that,         the

genealogy produced by the petitioner before Tribe Scrutiny

Committee shows that said Padmakar, Pravin and Nilesh do

not <nd place in the said genealogy and unless, the petitioner

establish his relationship with the said validity holders, the

validity certi<cate in favour of the petitioner can not be

granted. Learned AGP would further submit that, the order

passed by this Court in the case of Padmakar (supra) which is

relied   upon   by the   petitioner,   has     been   passed        post

invalidation of the tribe claim of the petitioner. He would
                          5                      939.WP.2319-2023.doc



further submit that so far as the genealogy relied upon by the

petitioner alongwith the a;davit <led by one Sangita

Babasaheb Vishwe alongwith by way of Civil Application,

though shows that the petitioner is cousin brother of the said

validity holders however, unless, the relationship of the

petitioner alongwith those validity holders is established, the

petitioner cannot derive the bene<t of said validities. Learned

AGP therefore, submits that, unless the petitioner establishes

his relationship with those validity holders before the Tribe

Scrutiny Committee and unless the same is scrutinized by the

Tribe Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner cannot claim that he

is entitled for the tribe validity certi<cate.


7.   After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as learned AGP for the State and the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, we <nd that the genealogy <led by the petitioner

before the Caste Scrutiny Committee is as below :
                        6                     939.WP.2319-2023.doc



8.   From the said genealogy, it could be seen that the other

validity holders on the basis of which the petitioner is

claiming validity are not shown in the said genealogy. The

petitioner is relying on a;davit <led by one Sangita

Babasaheb Vishwe claiming to be a cousin sister of the

petitioner. The petitioner alongwith Civil Application has

placed the said genealogy on record which is as follows :




9.   We <nd that unless the relationship of the petitioner

pursuant to said genealogy relied upon by the petitioner

alongwith a;davit of one Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe is duly

scrutinized and considered by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee, it

cannot be presumed that, the petitioner has established his

relationship with those validity holders. Besides the said
                         7                       939.WP.2319-2023.doc



valdity holder Ranjak Babasaheb Vishwe, the petitioner has to

establish his relationship with Pravin Ganpat Vishwe, Nilesh

Ganpat Vishwe and Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe which can only

be ascertained by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee. The said

validity certi<cates and the genealogy has been placed for

the <rst time before this Court alongwith Civil Application.

Therefore, it would not be possible for this Court to delve into

these documents as those pertains to post decision of

petitioner’s Tribe claim. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the

Writ Petition partly by remanding the matter back to the Tribe

Scrutiny Committee thereby granting an opportunity to the

petitioner to establish his relationship pursuant to the

genealogy and other material relied upon by the petitioner

alongwith Civil Application. We, therefore, pass the following

order :


                             ORDER

     A)   The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

     B)   The impugned judgment and order dated
     03.08.2012     passed     by   the   respondent
     No.2/Tribe   Certi<cate   Scrutiny   Committee,
                               8                       939.WP.2319-2023.doc



        Nashik Division Nashik is hereby quashed and
        set-aside.

        C)      The matter is remanded back to the
        respondent        No.2/Tribe    Certi<cate   Scrutiny
        Committee for fresh consideration so as to
        enable      the    petitioner    to    establish    his
        relationship with the validity holders on which
        the petitioner is relying upon.

        D)      Needless to state that the respondent/
        Tribe     Certi<cate    Scrutiny      Committee    will
        decide the said tribe claim in accordance with
        law by giving su;cient opportunity of hearing
        to the petitioner.

        E)      In peculiar facts and circumstances, the
        respondent        No.2/Tribe    Certi<cate   Scrutiny
        Committee, Nashik Division Nashik is directed
        to decide the said proceedings of tribe claim
        within a period of two months from today.


        F)      By virtue of disposal of Writ Petition, the
        Civil Application stands disposed of.




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

vsj..