APPASAHEB BIRUNAGI PANDITversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8114-DB

                                                                       30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 6202 OF 2022

               Appasaheb Birunagi Pandit                                 ...Petitioner
                         VERSUS
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                       ...Respondents

                                               ——————
               Ms. Supriya B. Koli i/by Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                             ——————

                                                CORAM :        SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                                                DATE        : AUGUST 27, 2026.

               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated

               6th August, 2019 passed by the Respondent No.3 - Committee

               invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner.

               2.        Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that

               the Petitioner's family originally hailed from Taluka Indi, District Bijapur,

               which was part of the old Bombay State, and after the Bombay

               Reorganisation Act, 1960, Bijapur District is now part of the Karnataka

               State. She would further submit that the family of the Petitioner

               migrated from the Karnataka State and permanently settled in Solapur

               on or about 1959–1960.


               Jamadar-SL                          1 of 4
                                                      30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc


3.      She would further point out the school leaving certificate of the

Petitioner's father, which reflects the Petitioner's caste as “Hindu

Harijan (Mahar)” and is dated 31st May, 1959. She would submit that the

only reason why the Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste

claim is that the school leaving certificate is of Bijapur, which is in the

State of Karnataka, and therefore, the Petitioner is the original resident

of Karnataka.

4.      She would draw support from the decision in the case of

Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 1 to

contend that the State origin would be the old Bombay State and not

Karnataka State, which was the result of the Bombay Reorganisation

Act.

5.      Learned AGP would point out that the caste certificate of the

Petitioner is of ‘Mang’, whereas the school leaving certificate of the

Petitioner’s father is of “Hindu Harijan (Mahar)”. He submits that though

both are Scheduled Castes, they are distinct entries under the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Notification. He submits that it

is for the Petitioner to obtain the correct caste certificate and

thereafter apply for validity.

6.      We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

7.      There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner's family

1    2001 (4) BOMCR582.


Jamadar-SL                       2 of 4
                                                        30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc


hailed from Taluka Indi, District Bijapur, which was a part of the old

Bombay State. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered that

after the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, Bijapur District was made

part of the Karnataka State and therefore, the State of origin would in

fact be the old Bombay State. There is, however, substance in the

contention of the learned AGP that the caste certificate which has been

obtained is of ‘Mang’, whereas the school leaving certificate is of “Hindu

Harijan (Mahar)”. Though both are listed as Scheduled Castes, the

Petitioner has to obtain the correct caste certificate before submitting

the same for validity.

8.       In light of the above, the Petition is disposed of by permitting the

Petitioner to apply for the correct caste certificate and thereafter

approach the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validating the said caste

certificate.

9.       We find from the impugned order that there is no consideration

by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the Bombay Reorganisation Act,

1960, by reason of which Bijapur District is now part of the Karnataka

State.

10.      The Committee invalidated the caste certificate only on the

ground that the Petitioner and his family are original residents of

Karnataka State and are required to obtain the certificate from the

State of origin.      The impugned order does not address the issue


Jamadar-SL                          3 of 4
                                                       30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc


correctly and is therefore required to be quashed and set aside.

11.    It is open for the Petitioner to obtain the correct caste certificate

and to seek validity.

12.    The Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the issue of validation

of the caste certificate afresh, either of the certificate of “Mang”, or the

fresh caste certificate, uninfluenced by the observations in the order of

6th   August,   2019,   by   taking   into    consideration   the   Bombay

Reorganisation Act, 1960 and to take into consideration whether the

State of origin by virtue of the Bombay Reorganisation Act would be the

old State of Bombay and not the State of Karnataka.

13.    The Petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                       [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Jamadar-SL                        4 of 4