Bombay High Court
SHUBHAM SANTOSH CHAVANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee's order cancelling the petitioner's tribe certificate and directed the issuance of a Tribe Validity Certificate to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Shubham Santosh Chavan, filed a writ petition seeking the cancellation of a Scrutiny Committee order dated 12 June 2026 that denied his claim to Thakar Schedule Tribe status and a declaration that he belongs to that category. The petitioner had earlier applied for verification of his tribe certificate in 2020, which was cancelled in 2022, leading to a prior writ petition that the High Court set aside in September 2025 and remanded for fresh consideration. On remand, the Committee again cancelled the certificate, ignoring a 2021 High Court order that had granted a Tribe Validity Certificate to the petitioner's brother, Onkar Santosh Chavan. Relying on the precedent in Apoorva Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Court held that a committee must respect a prior valid certificate for a blood relative unless fraud is shown. Consequently, the Court set aside the June 2026 order and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue the Tribe Validity Certificate to the petitioner within one week, disposing of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee must consider the earlier High Court order granting a Tribe Validity Certificate to the petitioner's brother when adjudicating the petitioner's own tribe claim.
- Whether the Committee can lawfully cancel the petitioner's tribe certificate without addressing the prior order and without finding fraud.
- Whether the High Court's direction to issue a Tribe Validity Certificate is binding on the Scrutiny Committee.
Subjects
- tribe certificate
- schedule tribe
- caste verification
- Scrutiny Committee
- high court precedent
- tribal status
- caste validity
Judgment
914-WP-8530-2026-F.doc
Shubham Chavan Vs. State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8530 OF 2026
Shubham Santosh Chavan ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
_______________________________________
Ms. B. R. Mangale, for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-State.
_______________________________________
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND
FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ.
DATE : 10th JULY 2026
ORDER:
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, heard by consent of parties.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioner is seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2 –
Scrutiny Committee, to forthwith withdraw and cancel the impugned order
dated 12th June 2026 in Case No. Caste/Edu/12th/Pune/358/2018. In the
Petition, the Petitioner has also sought a declaration that he belongs to the
Thakar Schedule Tribe category.
3. The Petitioner had preferred an Application to Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny
Committee for verification and scrutiny of the Tribe Certificate claimed by the
Petitioner vide Application dated 11th January 2020. The Petitioner had also
submitted documentary evidence in support of his Application.
4. Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee, vide order dated 20 th April 2022
cancelled the Tribe Certificate of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner
had filed a previous Writ Petition in this Court, being Writ Petition No. 11224
AMOL
PREMNATH
JADHAV Page 1 of 4
Digitally signed by -------------------------------------
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV Order dated 10th July 2026
Date: 2026.07.14
18:30:01 +0530
914-WP-8530-2026-F.doc
Shubham Chavan Vs. State
of 2023 seeking quashing and setting aside of the order of Respondent No. 2 –
Scrutiny Committee, dated 20th April 2022.
5. This Court, by an order dated 29th September 2025 had set aside the impugned
order therein and remanded the matter back to Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny
Committee, to pass appropriate orders afresh, keeping in mind, the view
expressed by this Court in the case of the brother of the Petitioner, namely,
Onkar Santosh Chavan and also the principles laid down in Apoorva Vinay
Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee1.
6. Upon remand, Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee after taking on record
the written arguments of the Petitioner and closing the matter for orders in
May 2026, passed the impugned order dated 12 th June 2026 and once again
cancelled the Tribe Certificate of the Petitioner. Hence, the Petitioner was
constrained to file the second round of litigation viz. this Writ Petition.
7. Mr. Mangale, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed reliance
on the order dated 25th January 2021 passed in Writ Petition (ST) No. 23349 of
2019, filed by the Petitioner’s brother, namely, Onkar Santosh Chavan. By the
said order, this Court upon consideration of the judgment of this Court in the
case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) had directed the Scrutiny Committee to
issue the requisite Tribe Validity Certificate to the Petitioner's brother after
setting aside the earlier rejection orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee. He
has submitted that the said order dated 25th January 2021 would clearly apply
in the present case.
8. Mr. Mangale has further placed reliance upon the order of remand dated 29 th
September 2025 in the present case, wherein the earlier order of the Scrutiny
Committee had been set aside on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee had
not considered the said order dated 25th January 2021 passed in the Petitioner’s
brother’s said Writ Petition. He submits that despite such express directions,
1 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053
Page 2 of 4
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th July 2026
914-WP-8530-2026-F.doc
Shubham Chavan Vs. State
the said order dated 25th January 2021 has not been considered.
9. Further, Mr. Mangale has submitted that the order dated 12 th June 2026 passed
by Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee which is impugned herein, has,
without complying with the directions of this Court vide order dated 29 th
September 2025 rejected the Petitioner’s tribal claim. He has accordingly
sought for the impugned order dated 12th June 2026 to be set aside.
10. The learned AGP appearing for Respondents has submitted to the orders of
this Court.
11. We have considered the submissions, and find merit in the submissions of the
Petitioner. In the Petitioner’s brother’s Writ Petition (St) No. 23349 of 2019,
this Court had directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue the Tribe Validity
Certificate to the Petitioner’s brother namely, Onkar Santosh Chavan. Having
done so, this order would clearly be applicable in the Petitioner’s case,
particularly in view of the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva Vinay
Nichale (supra). Respondent No 2 – Scrutiny Committee, has failed to adhere
to the directions of this Court in the present Petitioner’s first round of litigation
namely, order dated 29th September 2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 11224 of
2023 which had directed Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee to pass
appropriate orders afresh, keeping in mind the view expressed by this Court in
case of the Petitioner's brother’s Writ Petition as well as the principles laid
down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra).
12. The order of the Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee dated 12 th June 2026
impugned in this present Petition has clearly been passed without adhering to
the directions of this Court in the said order dated 29th September 2025. In the
impugned order there is no discussion whatsoever about the order dated 25 th
January 2021 and the issuance of the Tribe Validity Certificate to the
Petitioner’s brother. We, accordingly, find that the reasons for rejection of the
Tribe validity claim of the Petitioner given in the impugned order are
Page 3 of 4
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th July 2026
914-WP-8530-2026-F.doc
Shubham Chavan Vs. State
unsustainable particularly having due regard to the fact that pursuant to an
order passed by this Court, a Tribe Validity Certificate has already been issued
to the Petitioner's brother namely, Onkar Santosh Chavan.
13. In Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), this Court has held that matters pertaining
to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate as well as on the
future generations in diverse matters ranging from marriage to education and
enjoyment and therefore where a committee has already given a finding about
the validity of a caste of a candidate, another committee ought not to refuse the
same status to a blood relative. This Court has further held that a mere
different view on the same set of facts would not entitle the committee dealing
with the subsequent caste claim to reject it unless of course, it is of the view
that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud, in which case the subsequent
committee would not be bound by the earlier caste validity certificate and
would be entitled to refuse the caste claim whilst also initiating proceedings
for cancellation of the earlier order. In the present case, the Tribe Validity
Certificate was granted to the Petitioner’s brother pursuant to the order dated
25th January 2021 passed by this Court and it is not the case of Respondent No.
2 – Scrutiny Committee that there was any fraud involved in the said matter.
14. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 12 th June 2026 passed by
Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee and direct Respondent No. 2 -
Scrutiny Committee to issue the Tribe Validity Certificate to the Petitioner as
belonging to the Thakar, Schedule Tribe category within a period of one week
from the uploading of this order.
15. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ) ( R.I. CHAGLA J. )
Amol
Page 4 of 4
-------------------------------------
Order dated 10th July 2026
Checking your session…