Bombay High Court

SANJAY KADUBA SONWANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The court directed the committee to issue a conditional validity certificate to the petitioner, subject to the outcome of the reopened case of Rajiv and the filing of a restrictive affidavit.

Summary

The petitioner, Sanjay Kaduba Sonwane, filed a writ petition seeking a validity certificate confirming his belonging to the Scheduled Tribe 'Koli Malhar'. He relied on a prior order in Writ Petition No. 6154/2026 (Swapnil Rajiv Sonwane v. State of Maharashtra) where the court had directed a conditional validity certificate for the petitioner’s nephew. The court noted that it has ceased the practice of granting such certificates but, given the earlier order and the peculiar facts, it deemed it appropriate to grant a conditional certificate to the present petitioner. The certificate is to be issued subject to the judgment in the reopened case of Rajiv, the petitioner’s father. The petitioner must file an affidavit stating that if Rajiv's claim is invalidated, he will not claim any Scheduled Tribe benefits, and the affidavit must be filed with the employer and the committee within two weeks. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can direct issuance of a conditional validity certificate for Scheduled Tribe status pending the outcome of a related reopened case.
Whether the petitioner must provide an affidavit limiting his claim to Scheduled Tribe benefits contingent on the other case's outcome.

Subjects

Validity certificate
Scheduled Tribe
Koli Malhar
Conditional order
Writ petition
Reopened case
Affidavit

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40169-DB


                                                1            1-wp 7383-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 7383 OF 2026
                 Sanjay Kaduba Sonwane                                  .. Petitioner
                        Versus
                 The State Of Maharashtra And Others                    .. Respondents

                 Mr. Deepak D. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioner.
                 Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                         DATE : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                 PER COURT :-
                 1.     Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned A.G.P.

                 for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

                 2.     None appears for respondent No. 3 though served.

                 3.     At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Choudhari for the

                 petitioner gives to the notice of this Court an order passed by this

                 Court in Writ Petition No. 6154/2026 in the case of Swapnil Rajiv

                 Sonwane Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Others . He submits

                 that the Swapnil has approached this Court challenging the very

                 same order which is impugned in this petition. Swapnil happens

                 to be nephew of the present petitioner. In the said petition by

                 order dated 01.07.2026 this Court has directed to issue

                 conditional validity certificate in favour of Swapnil subject to
                                  2             1-wp 7383-2026.odt


reopening of the case of Rajiv i.e. father of Swapnil.

4.       Though this Court has now stopped practice of granting

validity certificate conditionally, however, looking to the fact that

in the case of same impugned judgment this Court has already

passed order directing the committee to grant conditional validity

certificate. In the peculiar facts of this case and in view of the

propriety this Court finds that the present case can be considered

for direction to grant conditional validity certificate to the

petitioner.

5.       The committee is directed to issue the petitioner a validity

certificate showing that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe “Koli

Malhar”. The said validity certificate shall be subject to the

judgment and order that would be rendered in reopened case of

Rajiv. The petitioner shall file an affidavit that if the claim of Rajiv

is invalidated, he shall not claim any benefits as belonging to a

person of Scheduled Tribe as “Koli Malhar”. Affidavit be filed with

the employer and with the committee within two weeks from

today.

6.       With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.


( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…