Bombay High Court
ASHOK PARSHURAM BHADEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
A validity certificate issued to a close paternal blood relative constitutes conclusive proof of the same Scheduled Tribe status for other relatives, warranting the quash of the Scrutiny Committee’s invalidation orders.
Summary
The petitioners sought validation of their claim to belong to the “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe after the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated their caste certificates. The Court noted that a validity certificate had already been issued to a close paternal relative, Atharv Manohar Bhadekar, and that such certificates are conclusive proof of caste status for all members of the same paternal lineage. Relying on earlier judgments that a paternal relative’s certificate establishes caste for the family, the Court set aside the Committee’s orders invalidating the petitioners’ claims. The Court also considered the pending show‑cause notice against another relative, Swati Chandrakant Bhadekar, and conditioned the issuance of new certificates on the outcome of that proceeding. Consequently, the Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee’s orders and directed issuance of validity certificates to the petitioners within six weeks, disposing of all writ petitions.
Issues considered
- Whether a validity certificate granted to a close paternal blood relative can be used as conclusive proof of Scheduled Tribe status for other relatives.
- Whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the petitioners' caste claims should be set aside in view of precedent.
- Whether the pending show‑cause proceedings against another family member affect the issuance of new validity certificates.
Subjects
- caste certificate
- Scheduled Tribe
- validity certificate
- Caste Scrutiny Committee
- paternal lineage
- judicial review
- writ petition
Judgment
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
PURTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRASAD
PARAB CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
PURTI PRASAD
PARAB
Date: 2026.08.24
12:08:39 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 2142 OF 2019
Deepali Satyawan Bhadekar and Anr. … Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 438 OF 2016
Pradeep Devidas Bhadekar … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4142 OF 2018
Ashok Parshuram Bhadekar … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Sushant Y. Jinturkar for the Petitioners.
Mr. K.S. Thorat, “B” Panel Counsel for the Respondent/State in
WP/2142/2019.
Ms. R.A. Salunkhe, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/438/2016.
Mr. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent/State in WP/4142/2018.
Ms. Rupali Andhare, Law Officer, Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune present.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 20th AUGUST, 2026.
ORAL ORDER : (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned AGP for
the Respondents.
Purti Parab 1/7
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
2. The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to the “Thakar”
Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. During
the pendency of these Petitions, it is the case of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners that close blood relatives of the Petitioners have been granted
the Certificates of Validity. Our attention is invited to the judgment dated
15th September, 2023 of this Court in Atharv Manohar Bhandekar vs. State
of Maharashtra and Anr.1 whereby the Scrutiny Committee was directed to
issue the Certificate of Validity to the Petitioner. Paragraph Nos. 2 to 6 of
this judgment reads thus :
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file rejoinder in
the matter. However, considering the reasons stated in the
impugned order and the urgency expressed by the learned counsel
for the petitioner, it may not be proper to wait for the reply of the
respondents. This is more so when there would be practically
nothing left for the Scrutiny Committee to say anything about the
impugned order other than what it has already said by giving the
reasons in the impugned order. Therefore, we do not find that reply
of the Scrutiny Committee is necessary and we are of the view that
this petition can be decided by merely considering the correctness
or otherwise of the reasons stated in the impugned order passed by
the Scrutiny Committee.
3. In the present case, there is one validity already existing in the
family of the petitioner. That validity has been granted to one
Swati, paternal aunt of the petitioner showing that she is a person
who belongs to “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe. This validity has not
been so far cancelled and it is stated in the impugned order that
1 Writ Petition No. 11656 of 2023
Purti Parab 2/7
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
the show-cause notice for cancellation of the same is contemplated.
If any such show-cause notice has been issued or would be issued
in future, the proceedings initiated or to be initiated thereupon
would take their own time. It is also not certain at this stage as to
whether or not those proceedings would be valid or not and if they
are held to be valid and within jurisdiction, it is still uncertain as to
what would be the fate of the whole proceedings.
4. We have a long developed body of law, which tells us that as
long as validity certificate granted to a paternal family member
exists, it constitutes a conclusive proof of the social status of that
person to whom the validity certificate is issued. In families which
are governed by patriarchal system, all the members of the families
take the same caste as that of the common ancestor. In such
families there would not be any members who would have
different castes at the same time. Applying this logic, this Court in
several cases has observed that a validity certificate issued to a
blood relative from the paternal side would serve as a strong and
valid proof for establishing the claim that such person belongs to
same caste which is shown in the validity certificate granted to the
blood relative.
5. The above referred law has been discussed in a recent case
decided by us on 14th September, 2023 in Writ Petition No.10759 of
2023 in Tejashree Mangilal Dambale Vs. The Scheduled Tribe
Certificate & Ors. The facts of this case are similar to the facts of
the present case, and therefore, also for the reasons stated
hereinabove, this petition deserves to be allowed for the same
reasons and in similar fashion.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is
quashed and set aside.
Purti Parab 3/7
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
3. Atharv is a close blood relative of the Petitioners from the
paternal side. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners referred to the
genealogy which was verified by the Scrutiny Committee. In the said
genealogy, the name of Atharv’s father, i.e., Manohar is shown. In so far as
the proceedings relating to Atharv is concerned, the genealogy referred to
clearly indicates the name of the Petitioners as close blood relatives. Not
only that but the Scrutiny Committee while rejecting the caste claim of
Atharv has referred to the invalidation of the caste claim of the Petitioners.
There does not appear to be doubt that Atharv Manohar Bhadekar is a
close blood relative of the Petitioners from the paternal side.
4. Learned AGP opposed the Petitions. He submitted that the
Scrutiny Committee, by a reasoned order has invalidated the caste
certificate. Further, heavy reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in
the case of Seema Bhadekar who is the real sister of the Petitioner -
Deepali Satyawan Bhadekar which was confirmed right upto this Court,
and even the Review Petition was rejected to contend that once the caste
claim so far as Seema is concerned is final, the same consequence will
follow even in so far as the present Petitioners’ case is concerned. The
caste claim of Seema was invalidated. The challenge to the Scrutiny
Committee’s order failed right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Purti Parab 4/7
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
5. It is, thus pertinent to note that so far as Seema Satyawan
Bhadekar, who is the real sister of the Petitioner - Deepali, is concerned,
her caste claim was invalidated. This Court by the order dated 9 th October,
2019 upheld the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the
caste claim of Seema. The Review Petition has since been rejected.
6. It is significant to note that in Atharv’s case, the Scrutiny
Committee, while invalidating the caste claim has placed reliance on the
decision of this Court in Seema Satyawan Bhadekar’s case. Thus, there is
no dispute that Seema is a close blood relative of Atharv.
7. When the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee in Atharv’s
case invalidating his caste claim was challenged in this Court, the
coordinate bench of this Court, by the aforesaid order dated 15 th
September, 2023 for the reasons which have been reproduced hereinabove,
set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste
claim of Atharv and thereupon issued directions to grant a certificate of
validity to Atharv as belonging to the “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe.
8. It is also material to state that in Paragraph No.7, the
coordinate bench directed the issuance of validity certificate to Atharv,
Purti Parab 5/7
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
which was subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated or to be
initiated upon a Show Cause Notice issued or to be issued to Swati
Chandrakant Bhadekar. We are informed that a Show Cause Notice has
been issued to Swati Chandrakant Bhadekar, but no final orders have been
passed.
9. No doubt Seema is the real sister of the Petitioner – Deepali
and a close blood relative of the Petitioners – Pradeep and Ashok whose
caste claims have been invalidated. Subsequent developments indicate
that based on the caste validity certificate issued to close blood relatives,
from the paternal side, they have been issued with a certificate of validity.
The Scrutiny Committee has exhaustively dealt with the invalidation of
Seema’s caste claim while invalidating the caste claim of Atharv. This
Court however, for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, set aside the order
passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in Atharv’s case. This being the
position, and when admittedly the Petitioners are close blood relatives of
Atharv from the paternal side, as even the genealogy has been verified by
the Scrutiny Committee, we see no reason to deny relief to the Petitioners
as prayed. In view of the law laid down in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Others 2, the
Petitions are allowed.
2 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 401
Purti Parab 6/7
5-WP-2142-2019 @ Ors.doc
10. The issuance of the validity certificate to the Petitioners stating
that they belong to the “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe is on the condition that
the validity certificates shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings
initiated or to be initiated upon a Show Cause Notice issued or to be issued
to Swati Chandrakant Bhadekar.
11. All Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. The orders passed
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set aside. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee may take further steps to issue the certificates of
validity to the Petitioners under “Thakar” Scheduled Tribe within a period
of six weeks from today.
12. All Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
13. In view of the above said order, the result of the interview held
on 13th August, 2020 in the case of Deepali Satyawan Bhadekar be
declared, and further consequential steps are permitted to be taken.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Purti Parab 7/7
Checking your session…