ANJALI SHESHRAO KABADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

                                              (1)                                 WP-9032-2026


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO. 9032 OF 2026

Anjali D/o. Sheshrao Kabade
Age: 19 years, Occu: Student,
R/o. Viranchi Dham, Mantri Row-Houses,
Shraddha Nagar, LIC Colony, Latur.
Tq. and Dist. Latur.                                                 ...PETITIONER
       VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
 Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Kinwat Committee-2,
Head Quarter at Aurangabad.

3. The Principal,
Rajarshi Shahu College, Latur
Tq. and Dist. Latur.

4. The State Common Entrance Test Cell,
Maharashtra State Mumbai
8th Floor, New Excelsior Building,
A. K. Nayak Marg, Fort,
Mumbai- 400001.                                                         ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. B. Deshpande, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. S. A. Deshmukh, Advocate
for Petitioner.
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. P. B. Kulkarni h/f Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    (2)                          WP-9032-2026



                   CORAM                    : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                             AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                   RESERVED ON              : 07th AUGUST 2026.
                   PRONOUNCED ON            : 03rd SEPTEMBER 2026.

ORDER :- [PER: KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


1.    Heard Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Advocate i/by Mr.

Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, Mr. Wani, the learned

AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State, and Mr. Kulkarni h/f Mr.

Narwadkar, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.4. None for

Respondent No.3, inspite of service.



2.    By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal

as the petitioner is a student undergoing an admission process. At the

outset, it needs to be noted that petitioner claim’s tribe certificate,

validity on the basis of clean validity given to her father and two sisters.


3.    By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 10/06/2026 passed by Respondent No.2/Committee,

thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to
                                   (3)                        WP-9032-2026


“Koli Mahadev” (29), Scheduled Tribe.


4.    The Respondent No.2/Committee had recorded the findings that

the record produced by the petitioner appears to be fabricated. In the

caste column of her great-grandfather and grandfather, the word

“Mahadev” appears to have been added in different ink and in different

handwriting after the word “Koli”. Some of the validities, reliance is

placed, are the persons who have not shown the branch of the present

petitioner in their family tree/genealogy. The affinity test was also held

against the petitioner etc.


5.    Mr. Deshpande, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner, vehemently argued the petition. He submits that the

Respondent No.2/Committee has committed an error by improperly

appreciating the documents on record. There is a validity granted in

favour of petitioner’s father by the Scrutiny Committee vide order dated

26/04/2006 on merits and which is not conditional. This Court granted

the validity even to both the sisters of the petitioner namely, Aishwarya

Sheshrao Kabade and Asavari Sheshrao Kabade vide order dated
                                   (4)                        WP-9032-2026


03/03/2023 in WP/111/2021. When there are two validities granted in

the family members of the petitioner by this Court and one validity

granted by the Scrutiny Committee on merits, there was no

reason/question for the Committee to hold any finding against the

petitioner. This Court, while considering the claim of sisters of the

petitioner, has considered very same material which is now not believed

by the Committee. Recording such findings would amount to reviewing

the order passed by this Court in two writ petitions. The Committee

could not have recorded the findings contrary to those findings recorded

by this Court on considering very same material. He thus prays that

impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside by

allowing the petition. It is further prayed to direct the Committee to

issue certificate in favour of the petitioner showing that she belongs to

Scheduled Tribe category namely, “Koli Mahadev”.


6.   Mr. Wani, the learned AGP, on the other hand, vehemently opposed

the petition. He submits that the case of the petitioner is required to be

considered independently. Merely there is a validity granted in the
                                   (5)                        WP-9032-2026


family members is no reason to grant the tribe claim. He submits that

the Committee has specifically recorded findings that there is

manipulation in the entries in the caste column. The word “Mahadev” is

subsequently added in different ink and in different handwriting. He has

taken this Court through the original records of the Committee including

the report of Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratories, Mumbai,

wherein it is recorded that the handwriting in the entries appeared to be

in different ink.


7.     In support of his submissions, he relied upon the judgment in the

case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State

of Maharashtra and Ors.1


8.     This Court has considered the submissions and the records. Very

first, it is admitted that in the case of Aishwarya Kabade, Asavari Kabade

and Sheshrao Kabade, the claims were invalidated by the Respondent

No.2/Committee by recording reasons which are mentioned in the

petition. It is further seen that this Court in Writ Petition No. 111/2021


1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326
                                         (6)                                WP-9032-2026


has clearly recorded its findings on the very same material. This Court

thus finds that there is substance in the submissions of the learned

Senior Advocate Mr. Deshpande that when this Court had recorded

specific findings in those cases, it is not open for the Committee to go

back and record the findings on the same material again.


9.   This Court has gone through the judgment in the case of

Aishwarya Sheshrao Kabade (supra) (the sister of the petitioner),

paragraph No.8 to 11 reads as under:

      “8.     As regards the alleged corrections or interpolations or insertions
      are concerned, though the affidavit of the Headmaster Laxman Dapke
      has been produced, he does not dispute that those documents are old.
      The natural custodian of those documents was his own school. Who has
      made those interpolations or insertions has not been investigated or
      inquired by the Scrutiny Committee. Those documents were definitely not
      in the custody of the present petitioners, their father or any other
      relative. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed for those
      interpolations or insertions. It would have been within the powers of the
      Scrutiny Committee to direct an inquiry to be made by the Vigilance Cell
      as to who has made those interpolations or insertions. Without
      undertaking that exercise Committee cannot blame the petitioners and
      keep them away from grant of validity. Very recently in Asra Fatema d/o
      Zakir Ali Ahmed vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Writ Petition
      No.920 of 2021 decided on 13.10.2022 this Court, Bench at Nagpur has
      also held that in absence of such investigation as to who has done an
      interpolation, the Vigilance Cell cannot be said to be based on any
      credible evidence and could not have been relied upon by the Scrutiny
      Committee. The said case is also relied by this Court in Suryanarayan
      Anand Katewar vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition
                                     (7)                                  WP-9032-2026


No.11964 of 2021 decided on 21.10.2022.

9.      The oldest document was of 07.11.1349 Fasali and it has been
got confirmed that it is 1939 as per the Gregoran calendar. Though the
said document was before the Scrutiny Committee, the impugned order
has discarded the same on some flimsy ground and without any evidence
it has arrived at a conclusion that all the entries are in one handwriting.
The distance between village Chera and Togari is about 20 - 25 k.ms.
Nobody was residing at village Chera, then got prepared by the
petitioners with the help of school management, are the observations.
The order does not reflect as to whether the said school authorities were
called upon to make any explanation. The Committee should have
considered the situation in the year 1939. The distance at that time was
more, but still admission was taken. Therefore, there was absolutely no
reason for the Committee to make such kind of observations without
undertaking any investigation or inquiry. Similarly, copy of the another
document which is stated to be the mortgage deed in Urdu which was of
the year 1362 Fasli i.e. 1952, the Committee on its own whims has
directly concluded that it is a fake document. Even the original was
taken in custody by the Committee and then it is stated that in view of
some erasers the Committee has taken decision to send it for the opinion
of the handwriting expert. If that decision was taken, then why the
Committee had not waited for that decision to come. Therefore, the
decision now based appears to have taken in haste, which cannot be
allowed to be sustained.

10.     There were other documents also which were more than 20 years
old and ranging till 1939 and still for some unreasonable grounds the
validity appears to have been rejected in respect of both the petitioners
and unnecessarily observations are made in respect of taking up the
steps for review of the validity certificate issued to the father. In fact, in
view of Apoorva Nichale (supra) there was absolutely no necessity for
the Committee to order the re-inquiry or to have Vigilance Cell report
circulation. We do not agree with the submissions on behalf of the
Government that the decision of this case would come in the process of
the review petition. The first and the foremost fact is that in spite of the
said decision by the Committee on 20.11.2020 till the matter was heard
                                              (8)                                 WP-9032-2026


         no steps were taken for filing of review petition. It has not been pointed
         out how Sunita Ganpatrao Kabade and Subhash Ganpatrao Kabade are
         related. If they want to rely on the family tree which was before the
         Vigilance Cell, then Subhash appears to be uncle of Shesherao i.e. the
         father of the petitioners. However, it is to be noted that in the Vigilance
         Cell Report apart from Subhash it was also written that one Balaji
         Ramesh Yamalwar, who is the real cousin of the petitioners, was also
         given validity certificate by the same Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
         Committee is not making any kind of whisper in respect of a validity
         certificate issued by it to Balaji Yamalwar.

         11.     Another uncle of father of petitioners viz. Shivaji Ganpatrao
         Kabade was issued validity certificate on 09.07.1991 and the copy of the
         certificate of validity was also produced. At the costs of repetition, it has
         to be observed that the Scrutiny Committee has not followed the decision
         in Apoorva Nichale (supra).”


10.    It is thus clear that when a very same material has been considered

by this Court, there was no scope for the Committee to go back and to

re-consider the same material.


11.    Considering the judgment in the case of Apoorva Nichale Vs.

DCCS Committee and ors.2, this Court finds that it was not permissible

for the Committee to re-appreciate the evidence which is already

considered by this Court in the cases of Aishwarya Kabade, Asavari

Kabade and Sheshrao Kabade and where unconditional validity is


2 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401
                                            (9)                                 WP-9032-2026


awarded.


12.   So far as judgment relied upon by the learned AGP in the case of

Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) is concerned, relevant

paragraph No.22 reads as under:

       “22. We can also contemplate one more scenario which is found in
       many cases. These are the cases where the applicant relies upon caste
       validity certificates issued to his blood relatives. Obviously, such a
       validity certificate has to be issued either by the Scrutiny Committee
       constituted in terms of the directions issued in Kumari Madhuri Patil’s
       case reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 or constituted under the Rules framed
       under the 2000 Act. In such a case, firstly, the Scrutiny Committee must
       ascertain whether the certificate is genuine. Secondly, the Scrutiny
       Committee will have to decide whether the applicant has established that
       the person to whom the validity certificate relied upon by him has been
       issued is his blood relative. For that purpose, the applicant must
       establish his precise and exact relationship with the person to whom the
       validity certificate has been granted. Moreover, an enquiry will have to
       be made by the Scrutiny Committee whether the validity certificate has
       been granted to the blood relative of the applicant by the concerned
       Scrutiny Committee after holding due enquiry and following due
       procedure. Therefore, if the Scrutiny Committee has issued a validity
       certificate contemplated in terms of the decision in the case of Kumari
       Madhuri Patil, the examination will be whether the enquiry contemplated
       by the said decision has been held. If the certificate relied upon is issued
       after coming into force of the 2000 Act, the Scrutiny Committee will have
       to ascertain whether the concerned Scrutiny Committee had followed the
       procedure laid down therein as well as in the ST Rules or the SC Rules,
       as the case may be. For this verification, the Scrutiny Committee can
       exercise powers conferred on it by Section 9(d) by requisitioning the
       record of the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee, which has issued the
       validity certificate to the blood relative of the applicant. If the record has
                                            ( 10 )                               WP-9032-2026


        been destroyed, the Scrutiny Committee can ascertain whether a due
        enquiry has been held on the basis of the decision of the Caste Scrutiny
        Committee by which caste validity has been granted to the blood relative
        of the applicant. If it is established that the validity certificate has been
        granted without holding a proper inquiry or without recording reasons,
        obviously, the caste scrutiny committee cannot validate the caste
        certificate only on the basis of such validity certificate of the blood
        relative.”



13.   It thus needs to be considered as to whether the earlier validities

granted to the family members and in near relatives are given by

following due procedure. In the present case, the father of the petitioner

namely, Sheshrao Kabade was granted validity by the Scrutiny

Committee and the sisters of the petitioner namely, Aishwarya Kabade

and Asavari Kabade, were granted validity by this Court by following

procedure. When the validity was granted by the Scrutiny Committee to

the father of the petitioner himself, there is no question about reopening

of his matter. In short, when validities of father and two sisters are

existing, that too, of unconditional nature, the petitioner too is entitle

for validity.


14.   Considering all above, this Court finds that a case is made out to

allow the petition. Writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer
                                          ( 11 )                    WP-9032-2026


clauses (B) and (C).


15.          With these, writ petition stands disposed off.



[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]                             [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

D.A.ETHAPE