Bombay High Court
ANKUSH GANGADHAR MADALWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the matter must be remanded to the ST Certificate Verification Committee for a fresh decision due to the non‑consideration of material evidence.
Summary
Anand Madalwar filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of his Scheduled Tribe (ST) status by the ST Certificate Verification Committee. He claimed that he belongs to the Koli Mahadev tribe and that the Committee failed to consider crucial genealogical evidence linking his grandfather to the petitioner’s family. The State of Maharashtra opposed, citing a statement by Nagorao Madalwar that he had no siblings, thereby contesting the petitioner’s claim of a brother‑grandfather relationship. The Court observed that material submitted by the petitioner, including revenue records showing Nagorao and Saibu Rachana as brothers, was not examined by the Committee. Consequently, the Court found a prima facie case warranting a fresh determination and ordered the matter to be remanded to the Committee for a new enquiry within four months. The petition was thereafter disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is a member of the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe for purposes of the ST certificate.
- Whether the ST Certificate Verification Committee erred in not considering the genealogical and revenue records presented by the petitioner.
- Whether the petition should be remanded for a fresh decision by the Committee.
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe
- ST certificate
- genealogical evidence
- remand
- tribal status
- Maharashtra
- writ petition
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37114-DB
(1) 37-WP-9859-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
37 WRIT PETITION NO. 9859 OF 2025
Ankush Gangadhar Madalwar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Another
…..
Mr. Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for State.
…..
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 17th AUGUST 2026.
PC :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for some time.
2. By consent, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioners claim that their claim of belongs to the Koli Mahadev
Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Verification Committee – Respondent No.2.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that there is already a validity in favour of
his near relative, namely, Dnyaneshwar Madalwar. However, because of the
family dispute, he has refused to give an affidavit in favour of the petitioner as
Kiran Kawre
(2) 37-WP-9859-2025
required. He submits that one Rachubai Madalwar also appears to be his
cousin, who appears to be the daughter of Nagorao, i.e. the father of
Dnyaneshwar Madalwar. The revenue record shows that Nagorao and the
grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Hanmant Madalwar, are real brothers.
However, these material aspects have not been considered. He accepts that,
while submitting the genealogy, a proper genealogical tree was not given.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Vibhute, further submits that
the said material filed by the petitioner was also not properly considered.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Patil vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that
the father of Dnyaneshwar, namely, Nagorao, has specifically given a
statement to the Vigilance Committee, in the case of Dnyaneshwar, that he has
no brother or sister and that he was the only child. He thus submits that there
is no question of Nagorao Madalwar having any brother who is stated to be
grandfather of the petitioner. Learned counsel, Mr. Vibhute has shows some
revenue record wherein the name of Nagorao Madalwar and Saibu Rachana
are shown as real brothers and that material ought to have been considered.
7. This Court find that, prima facie, there is some material to show that
the petitioner has placed on record material which was not properly
Kiran Kawre
(3) 37-WP-9859-2025
considered. There is no reference even to the say filed by the petitioner in the
judgment of the Committee. On these points, we find that a case is made out
to remand the matter back to the Committee for a fresh decision.
8. The committee, if necessary, may again direct the Vigilance Committee
to conduct an enquiry and specifically make an enquiry about the relationship
between Nagorao and the grandfather of the petitioner and pass a fresh order.
9. This exercise be done within a period of four months from today. With
this, the petition stands disposed of.
[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…