SUMIT SANTOSH TADEWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

                                      (1)               921-WP-9694-2026




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO.9694 OF 2026

Sumit s/o. Santosh Tadewad
Age: 18 years, Occu: Education,
R/o. At Pardi J. Post- Himayatnagar,
Tal. Himayatnagar, Hamlet,
Dist. Nanded-431802.                                 ...Petitioner
     VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary to Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32.

2. The Deputy Director or Member Secretary,
The Schedule Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Verification Committee,
Kinwat, Head Quarters,
Chhatrpati Sambhajinagar.                         ...Respondents
……………………………………………………………………………
Mr. C. D. Biradar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2-State.
……………………………………………………………………………

                    CORAM                   : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                             JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

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

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

1.   Heard Mr. Biradar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.

Pulkundwar, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
                                   (2)                  921-WP-9694-2026




2.    The present writ petition is filed by a student whose caste/tribe

validity proposal is rejected by the Respondent No.2/Committee as

being a person not belonging to Scheduled Tribe, “Mannervarlu (27)”.


3.    The caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the learned

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded. His proposal was

sent by this college through Principal, Hutatma Jayvantrao Patil Girl

School and Junior College, Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded, for getting

certificate validated. The Committee vide Judgment and Order dated

27/07/2026 has refused to accept the tribe claim of the petitioner.


4.    Since the petitioner happens to be a student and he has hope to

get an admission against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe

candidate, he prays for an early hearing of this petition. Therefore,

the petition is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties at

the stage of admission.


5.    The facts in short are that the petitioner claimed to belonging to

“Mannervarlu”, Scheduled Tribe. There are some validity certificates

granted in favour of his relatives. The petitioner produced voluminous

documents before the Committee in support of his claim. The
                                    (3)                   921-WP-9694-2026




Respondent/Committee, however, found many contra entries in the

the records. So far as affinity test is concerned, the respondent/

Committee held against the petitioner, holding that the petitioner

failed to prove his affinity with the scheduled tribe. The validity

certificates on which the petitioner relied has been obtained by

suppressing material facts, etc. that is why the petitioner is before this

Court.


6.      Mr. Biradar, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently

argued that the respondent/Committee failed to appreciate the

voluminous material produced by the petitioner in support of his

caste     claim.   The   Respondent/Committee        gave    unnecessary

importance to entries of some other relatives whose caste is shown to

be "मुनरवार" or "मुनरवाड”. There are entries in the caste column of many

relatives of the petitioner wherein the caste is shown to be

“Mannervarlu”. The respondent/Committee did not appreciate the

copy of sale-deed executed by his grandfather namely, Govind Kondba

Tadewad, wherein his caste is shown to be “Mannervarlu”. The said

sale-deed is dated 04/05/1954. This valuable document is not

considered. The sale-deed of some other relative is considered by the
                                     (4)                921-WP-9694-2026




Committee wherein there was a statement that the land owner is not

belonging to Scheduled Tribe. This was also relied upon by Digambar

Govindrao Tadewad. He also submits that the said statement was

made in the sale-deed only to see that there is no bar under the

provision of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled

Tribes Act, 1975. Since the said statement was made only for the

purpose of sale-deed, the same could not have been used against the

petitioner. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned judgment

and order passed by respondent/Committee deserves to be quashed

and set aside by directing Committee to issue validity certificate in

favour of the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe.


7.       During the course of argument, learned Advocate for the

petitioner relied upon following judgments :

           (i)   Anil s/o. Dattatraya Kusare V.s S. T. Caste
                 Certificate Scrutiny Committee Yawatmal.1;
           (ii) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
           of    Tribe Claims and Ors.2;
           (iii) Krish s/o. Anand Kumbhare Vs. Union of India and
                 Ors.3;
           (iv) Yogesh Madhav Makalwad Vs. The State of
                 Maharashtra and Ors.4;

1    2025 (2) Mh.L.J. 198
2    (2012) 1 SCC 113
3    2026 (2) Mh.L.J. 667
4    SLP (C) No.27410/2024
                                           (5)        921-WP-9694-2026




         (v)    Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
                Certificate Scrutiny Committee and Ors.5;
         (vi) Sauravkumar s/o. Sunilkumar Katole Vs. Scheduled
                Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee6;
         (vii) Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.7;
         (viii) Narendra Gopalrao Nadge Vs. The Scheduled Tribe
                Certificate Scrutiny Committee Amravati and
                Ors.8;
         (ix) Shruti Sayanna Gudlawar Vs. The State of
                Maharashtra and Ors.9;
         (x) Nikhil Suryakant Padalwar Vs. State of
                Maharashtra and Ors.10;
         (xi) Karewwa and Ors. Vs. Hussensab Khansaheb
                Wajantri and Ors.11;
         (xii) Jagdish Singh Vs. Balwant Singh12.


8.      Mr. Pulkundwar, learned AGP appearing for Respondent/State

vehemently opposed the petition. He submits that the Committee has

rightly considered the documents on record. The petitioner failed to

prove his tribe status by showing entries of pre-constitution era. The

sale-deed dated 04/05/1954 is a private document. His statement in

the said documents cannot be relied upon, whereas the sale-deed

executed by his near relative namely, Digambar Tadewad clearly made


5 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401
6 2025 (6) Mh.L.J. 354
7 (2009) 10 SCC 268
8 WP/5812/2022 (Nagpur)
9 WP/11366/2022 (Aurangabad)
10 WP/5349/2019 (Bombay)
11 AIR 2002 SC 504
12 Civil Revision/295/2002 on 21.05.2003
                                     (6)                  921-WP-9694-2026




a statement in the sale-deed that he does not belong to scheduled

tribe category. The validity certificates relied upon by the petitioner

are obtained by suppressing material facts. The caste shown in the

records of his real uncle, real brother, cousin sisters and one another

uncle is recorded as "मुनरवाढ", "मुनरवाड" and "मुन्नरवाड”. The entries

showing the caste in respect of his cousin sisters, cousin aunt etc. are

all after 1978 and thus, those cannot be relied upon. So far as affinity

test is concerned, the Committee has also rightly appreciated the

evidence. He thus prays for dismissal of this writ petition.


9.     Learned AGP relied upon the following judgments:

        (i)     Ketaki Bhumayya Muttepod Vs. The State of
                Maharashtra and Anr.13;
        (ii)    Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.14.


10.    This Court has gone through the petition papers and also

perused the files of the petitioner and the orders passed by the

Committee. This Court has verified the material documents which

were produced by the petitioner and respondent before this Court.


11.    Considering the submissions and other material, this Court

needs only to check as to whether the petitioner has proved his tribe
13 WP/11751/2025 (Aurangabad)
14 (2010) 2 SCC 114
                                    (7)               921-WP-9694-2026




to be scheduled tribe? and whether the respondent/Committee has

rightly deny the said claim of the petitioner?


12.   The respondent/Committee has passed common judgment

wherein the present petitioner is Applicant No. Aapplicant No.2

whether has challenged the impugned judgment is not clear.


13.   In the submissions of learned Advocate Mr. Biradar, as stated

above, there is one validity certificate granted in the case of Arvind

Ramrao Tadewad. However, it appears to be from the maternal side.

This submission is opposed by the learned AGP by showing entry in

the case of Anand Yadu Tadewad, real brother, whose caste is shown

to be "मुनरवार" in the school records when he was admitted to school

on 20/06/1966. His uncle namely, Vithhal Ramji Tadewad is recorded

as "मुनरवाढ" in the school register when he was admitted on

20/11/1961. It is seen that same is the case with his cousin sister

namely, Vachhala Tadewad and Jijabai Tadewad, who are shown to be

"मुनरवाड" and "मुन्नरवाड" in the entries in the Zilla Parishad Primary

School, Pardi, Tal. Himayatnagar Dist. Nanded where they took

admission on 20/11/1961 and 01/07/1967, respectively. It is only

after 1978 that his relatives are shown to be belonging to
                                     (8)                  921-WP-9694-2026




Mannervarlu. This Court thus finds that there are contra entries in

respect of near relatives. It is very interesting to note that his father’s

school entries were not shown by the petitioner.


14.   So far as sale-deed executed by Digambar Govindrao Tadewad,

who is admittedly blood relative of the petitioner, is concerned, he has

clearly made a statement that he does not belong to scheduled tribe.

Though it is tried to argue that this statement was made to avoid the

bar under the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes

Act, such contention cannot be accepted. A person cannot blow hot

and cold at the same time. Considering that statement alongwith

other evidence i.e. contra entries, there is no scope to believe that the

said statement is made only to avoid the legal bar.


15.   The Committee has considered the files of other persons on

whose validity certificates the petitioner has relied. The Committee

considered the file of Arvind Ramrao Tadewad, Sachin Anandrao

Tadewad, Nitin Anandrao Tadewad and Ramesh Yadavrao Tadewad.

The validities issued in the name of these three persons is of 2005 and

validity issued in the name of Ramesh Tadewad is of the year 2007.

The Committee considered the entries in the school records of those
                                      (9)                  921-WP-9694-2026




persons which were suppressed. In the case of Anand Yadu Tadewad,

his caste is shown to be "मुनरवार" in the Zilla Parishad Primary School,

Pardi.     The said entry is dated 20/06/1966. This Anand Tadewad

happens to be father of Nitin and Sachin Tadewad.


16.      So far as Arvind Tadewad is concerned, his entry in the school is

of 1984 wherein the caste is registered as "मुन्नरवारलू”. This Court thus

finds that the Committee has rightly appreciated that those validities

would not help the petitioner.


17.      It is also seen from the record that notices are already issued to

Arvind Tadewad and inquiry is held and his file is closed. In the cases

of Sachin, Nitin an Ramesh Tadewad, already in their cases, show

cause notices are issued. Thus, considering all above, this Court finds

that all the validity holders on whose validities the petitioner has

relied are under cloud of doubt.


18.      So far as sale-deed by the grandfather prioer to independece is

concerned, the learned AGP has shown that original of sale-deed is

not available in the records as revealed in enquiry. Now, only copy of

sale-deed is produced by the petitioner. The only argument is that the

document is thirty years old document and therefore, it will have to
                                    ( 10 )              921-WP-9694-2026




be acceptted as genuine. This submission cannot be accepted as

present case is not about the sale-deed and is about the caste status.

As it is original record of the said sale-deed is not traced anywhere in

record.


19.   It is also pointed out by the learned AGP during the course of

arguments that the basic validity is of Arvind Tadewad, which was

granted by relying upon the validity of one Venktesh Kisanrao

Kansatwad, who happens to be son of aunt of petitioner and this

cannot be said to be a relative from father’s side.


20.   The judgments relied by the petitioner are discussed below:


21.   In the case of Anil Dattatray Kusare (supra), in the said case,

the documents pertaining to great grandfather, grandfather and

cousin grandfather of the petitioner therein were considered, wherein

their caste was recorded as “Halbi”. There was no dispute raised

about the authenticity of the those documents and entries made

therein. It was neither disputed by the Committee nor by the vigilance

cell. In the said case, the Court held that the said documents cannot

be disputed and held in favour of petitioner. In the present case, the

documents in respect of pre-constitutional document is only one sale-
                                   ( 11 )               921-WP-9694-2026




deed executed by grandfather of the petitioner. Though the translated

copy of the said document is produced on record, however, the

original copy of said sale-deed could not be traced by the authorities

during the inquiry.


22.   So far as judgment in the case of Anand (supra) is concerned,

the Hon’ble Apex Court considered that the caste claim needs to be

considered not only on thorough examination of the documents

submitted but also on the affinity test. The Hon’ble Apex Court

considered various aspects as regards the affinity test. The Court held

that there cannot be absolute rule to be laid down. Neither such rule

can be applied mechanically to examine caste claim. In that view, the

Court laid down certain broad parameters. There is no doubt about

the said proposition. It is thus clear that no straight jacket formula

can be laid down while considering such claims. Each case needs to

be considered on the facts and the material of that case.


23.   In the case of Krish Anand Kumbhare (supra), in the said

judgment, the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur by considering

facts of that case allowed the writ petition. The said judgment is of no

much help to the petitioner.
                                   ( 12 )               921-WP-9694-2026




24.   So far as judgment in the case of Yogesh Makalwad (supra) is

concerned, considering the judgment in the case of Anand (supra),

the Court, on facts of that case and on verification of the record, has

allowed the Special Leave Petition directing to issue validity

certificate. The said judgment is in the facts of that case. On facts in

the present case, the said judgment would not be applicable.


25.   In the case of Apoorva Nichale (supra), the Division Bench of

this Court held that in normal course when there are validities

granted in the families, the person should not be denied the caste

status. However, in the present case, the validities on which the

petitioner is relied upon have already been reopened. The basic

validity itself is under cloud, and therefore, this judgment would not

help the petitioner.


26.   Learned Advocate for the petitioner relied upon some other

judgments as well. However, on facts, this Court finds that those have

no application to the present case. He also relied upon the judgment

delivered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of

Jagdish Singh (supra). It is about the custody of the documents. It is

held that when the documents are coming from proper custody and is
                                   ( 13 )               921-WP-9694-2026




of 30 years old, the same should be relied upon in view of Section 90

of the Evidence Act. There cannot be any dispute about the said. This

Court has already discussed in the present case though the old sale-

deed is tried to be relied upon investigation however, no record of the

the same is not found in the records. In the case of Karewwa (supra),

in that case, the name of respondent was recorded in the revenue

record as tenant in the year 1973. By applying section 90, the said

document was relied upon. However, these judgments would not help

the petitioner.


27.   In the case of Nikhil Suryakant Padalwar (supra), this Court

had relied upon copy of sale-deed. The Court also considered the

judgment in the case of Apoorva Nichale and allowed the petition.

However, this case is also on facts of that case and would not help the

petitioner in the present case.


28.   So far as judgment relied upon by the learned AGP is

concerned, in the case of Ketaki Bhumayya Muttepod (supra), this

Court by considering the case of Dalip Singh (supra), had dismissed

the writ petition. This Court also considered the contra entries and

conduct of the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition.
                                         ( 14 )              921-WP-9694-2026




29.          Considering all above, this Court does not find any merit in the

writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed and disposed off

accordingly.



     [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                          [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE