Bombay High Court

BALAJI HANMANLU KARHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

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

Holding

The order of the Scrutiny Committee rejecting the petitioner's tribe claim was quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh decision, subject to the petitioner establishing his relationship with the validity certificate holders.

Summary

The petitioner, Balaji Karhade, challenged the Scrutiny Committee's order that rejected his claim to belong to the Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe. He relied on validity certificates issued to his blood relatives and a prior conditional validation granted to a relative in Writ Petition No. 9830 of 2023. The State argued that the petitioner failed to establish a genealogical link with those certificate holders, as the branch he claimed differed from the genealogies submitted earlier. The Court held that without proof of relationship, the petitioner could not benefit from the relatives' certificates, and therefore the Committee's order was erroneous. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Scrutiny Committee to reassess the claim, allowing the petitioner an opportunity to demonstrate his relationship and, if necessary, conduct a fresh vigilance enquiry, with a directive to decide within ten months.

Issues considered

Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in discarding the validity certificates of the petitioner's relatives while rejecting his tribe claim.
Whether the petitioner has sufficiently established a genealogical relationship with the validity certificate holders to derive benefit.
Whether the order of the Scrutiny Committee can be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe
tribe claim
validity certificate
genealogy
Scrutiny Committee
writ petition
quash
remand
vigilance enquiry

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7331-DB
                                                (1)
                                                           957 W. P. No. 3037-2025.odt
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                WRIT PETITION NO 3037 OF 2025

                       Balaji S/o Hanmanlu Karhade,
                       Age : 37 Years, Occ. Service,
                       R/o. Narangal, Taluka Degloor,
                       Dist. Nanded.                          ...PETITIONER
                              VERSUS
                1.     The State of Maharashtra
                       Tribe Development Department
                       Through its Secretary,
                       Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                2.     Scheduled Tribe Certificate
                       Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat
                       Office at Aurangabad
                       through its Member Secretary.

                3.     Shri. Swami Vivekanand Shikshan
                       Sanstha, Kolhapur
                       Through its Secretary,
                       2130, ‘E’ Ward, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur

                4.     Ramkrishna Parmhans College,
                       Dharashiv,
                       Through its Principal                ..RESPONDENTS

                                                ….
                       Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sagar S. Phatale
                       A.P.P. for Respondent/State : Mr. N. B. Patil
                                                …..

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

                                  DATED :        FEBRUARY 17, 2026

                JUDGMENT (PER ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J):-

                1.     Heard.


                2.     Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
                               (2)
                                           957 W. P. No. 3037-2025.odt
of the parties, matter is disposed of at the stage of admission.


3.   By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is taking an

exception to the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by respondent

No.2/ Scrutiny Committee, by which the tribe claim of the

petitioner of belonging to “Mannervarlu” Scheduled Tribe has

been invalidated.


4.   The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the

petitioner, to substantiate his tribe claim, has relied on various

validity certificates issued in favour of his blood relatives by

the Scrutiny Committee itself. However, the said validity

certificates were discarded by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny

Committee. He would further submit that, in addition to these

validity certificates, his blood relative namely Ajay Sayanna

Karhade, whose tribe claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny

Committee, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition

No. 9830 of 2023, wherein this Court, by order dated

09.08.2023, has granted conditional validity to him. He

therefore submits that, the respondent/Scrutiny Committee

has committed an error by discarding all these validities.

5.   Per contra, the learned A.G.P. submits that, besides

there being several contra entries, the petitioner is not able to

substantiate his relationship with those validity holders, as the
                                  (3)
                                               957 W. P. No. 3037-2025.odt
genealogy annexed by the petitioner depicts that the branch

from which the petitioner claims to be belonging to is

altogether different, which does not match with the genealogy

submitted, by the validity holders while submitting the

proposals for verification of their tribe claims before the

Scrutiny Committee.


6.   Be that as it may, we find that though the petitioner has

relied on a genealogy, wherein several validity holders are

finding place, however, we find that, considering the earlier

genealogy submitted by the validity holders, while submitting

their tribe claim, the branch of the petitioner is not at all

shown.      We find that, unless the petitioner establish his

relationship with the said validity holders, the petitioner

cannot derive benefits of their validity certificates.


7.           In that view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to

remand      the   matter   back   to    the   respondent/      Scrutiny

Committee, so as to ascertain the relationship of the petitioner

with the validity holders on which the petitioner is placing

reliance.   In that view of the matter, we pass the following

order.



                           ORDER
                                    (4)
                                               957 W. P. No. 3037-2025.odt
(i)     The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

(ii)    The impugned order dated 20.02.2025 passed by

        respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed

        and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny

        Committee.

(iii)   Respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee is directed to

        decide the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh, by giving

        sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to establish his

        relationship with the validity holders from whom the

        petitioner seeks to derive benefit.

(iv)    If required, the respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee

        may also conduct fresh Vigilance Cell Enquiry so as to

        ascertain the relationship of the petitioner with those

        validity holders.

(v)     Considering the fact that the tribe claim is of the year

        2024,   we   direct   the    respondent   No.2/     Scrutiny

        Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner

        as expeditiously as possible and       preferably within a

        period of ten months from today.

8.           With these directions, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.


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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…