WP/2319/2013 of NISHIKANT DNYANESHWAR VISHWE Vs THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

1 939.WP .2319-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2319 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2115 OF 2025 1. Nishikant Dnyaneshwar Vishwe Age : 27 years, Occu.Student, R/o, Padhegaon, Tq.Shrirampur, Presently residing at RBI colony, F11/3, Sector 7, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai. ...Petitioner VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32 Through Its Secretary ...Respondents ****** Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Anil S. Golegaonkar AGP for Respondent/State : Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya ****** CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 08th JANUARY 2026 FINAL ORDER : ( PER :ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) . Heard. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is taking a n exception to the order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the 2026:BHC-AUG:919-DB 2 939.WP .2319-2023.doc respondent No.2/Tribe Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belong ing to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tr ibe Scrutiny Committee committed an error by rejecting the trib e claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Sched uled Tribe despite, there being su;cient material on record including the validity certi<cate issued in favour of h is cousin brother viz. Ranjak son of Babasaheb Vishwe dated 15.04.2005 issued by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee itself. To substantiate the relationship of the petitioner with the sai d validity holder Ranjak, the learned counsel for the p etitioner invited our attention to the genealogy to show that, Nam dev has four sons viz. Prabhakar, Babasaheb, Dnyaneshwar and Ganpat. He would submit that the petitioner is son of Dnyaneshwar whereas, said validity holder Ranjak is son of Babasaheb and being a cousin brother of validity hold er, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have granted validity certi<cate to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our 3 939.WP .2319-2023.doc attention to the documents annexed with the Civil Application and submits that one Padmakar Babasaheb Vishwe who, i s cousin brother of the petitioner has also been granted validity by this Court by an order dated 16.03.2017 in Writ Petition No.15 of 2009 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the a;davit <led by one-Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe to submit that, the genealogy alongwith her a;da vit would depict that said Padmakar, Sangita and Ranjak are cousin brothers of the petitioner and since, all of the m have been granted validites, the petitioner deserves to be gra nted the validity certi<cate of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Schedu led Tribe. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further sub mit that, even from the said genealogy it could be seen t hat another uncle of petitioner viz. Ganpat who is having three children viz. Sonali, Pravin and Nilesh. Out of them, Pravin and Nilesh had <led Writ Petition No.6397 of 2007 challenging the order of invalidation of their caste claims and th e matter had reached upto the Hon’ble Apex Court and after the matter being remanded back to this Court, this Court by 4 939.WP .2319-2023.doc judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 allowed the said Writ Petition <led by Pravin and Nilesh (supra) thereby, remanding the matter back to the Tribe Scrutiny Committee and Trib e Scrutiny Committee on 30.03.2015 and 06.04.2015 respectively has issued caste validity certi<cates in the ir favour and this according to learned counsel for the petitioner is one more facet that supports the case of petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, relying on the validities granted in favour of Padmakar, Pravin and Nilesh would submit that, petitioner deserves to be granted validity. 6. Per contra , learned AGP would submit that, the genealogy produced by the petitioner before Tribe Scr utiny Committee shows that said Padmakar, Pravin and Nilesh do not <nd place in the said genealogy and unless, the petitioner establish his relationship with the said validity holde rs, the validity certi<cate in favour of the petitioner can not b e granted. Learned AGP would further submit that, the orde r passed by this Court in the case of Padmakar (supra) which is relied upon by the petitioner, has been passed post invalidation of the tribe claim of the petitioner. He would 5 939.WP .2319-2023.doc further submit that so far as the genealogy relied upon by the petitioner alongwith the a;davit <led by one Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe alongwith by way of Civil Application, though shows that the petitioner is cousin brother of the said validity holders however, unless, the relationship of the petitioner alongwith those validity holders is establ ished, the petitioner cannot derive the bene<t of said validities. Learned AGP therefore, submits that, unless the petitioner establi shes his relationship with those validity holders before the Tribe Scrutiny Committee and unless the same is scrutinized by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled for the tribe validity certi<cate. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitio ner as well as learned AGP for the State and the Caste Scr utiny Committee, we <nd that the genealogy <led by the petition er before the Caste Scrutiny Committee is as below : 6 939.WP .2319-2023.doc 8. From the said genealogy, it could be seen that the other validity holders on the basis of which the petitioner i s claiming validity are not shown in the said genealogy . The petitioner is relying on a;davit <led by one Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe claiming to be a cousin sister of the petitioner. The petitioner alongwith Civil Application has placed the said genealogy on record which is as follows : 9. We <nd that unless the relationship of the petitioner pursuant to said genealogy relied upon by the petitione r alongwith a;davit of one Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe is duly scrutinized and considered by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee, it cannot be presumed that, the petitioner has established his relationship with those validity holders. Besides the sa id 7 939.WP .2319-2023.doc valdity holder Ranjak Babasaheb Vishwe, the petitioner has to establish his relationship with Pravin Ganpat Vishwe, Nilesh Ganpat Vishwe and Sangita Babasaheb Vishwe which can only be ascertained by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee. The sa id validity certi<cates and the genealogy has been placed for the <rst time before this Court alongwith Civil Appli cation. Therefore, it would not be possible for this Court to delve into these documents as those pertains to post decision of petitioner’s Tribe claim. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition partly by remanding the matter back to the Tribe Scrutiny Committee thereby granting an opportunity to the petitioner to establish his relationship pursuant to the genealogy and other material relied upon by the petiti oner alongwith Civil Application. We, therefore, pass the following order : ORDER A) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. B) The impugned judgment and order dated 03.08.2012 passed by the respondent No.2/Tribe Certi<cate Scrutiny Committee, 8 939.WP .2319-2023.doc Nashik Division Nashik is hereby quashed and set-aside. C) The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2/Tribe Certi<cate Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration so as to enable the petitioner to establish his relationship with the validity holders on which the petitioner is relying upon. D) Needless to state that the respondent/ Tribe Certi<cate Scrutiny Committee will decide the said tribe claim in accordance with law by giving su;cient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. E) In peculiar facts and circumstances, the respondent No.2/Tribe Certi<cate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division Nashik is directed to decide the said proceedings of tribe claim within a period of two months from today. F) By virtue of disposal of Writ Petition, the Civil Application stands disposed of. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. ) vsj..