Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10907 OF 2004 Ganesh S/o. Krushnarao Bayaskar, Aged about 31 years, Occu.: Service, R/o. Mr. Mahurkar’s Flour Mill, Hanuman Nagar, Chhoti Umari, Akola – 444 005. … Petitioner Versus 1. The Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati. 2. The Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Region, Amravati. .… Respondents **** Adv. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Adv. Priyanka Shaw, for the petitioner. Smt. Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP for the respondent-State. **** CORAM : M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 17th SEPTEMBER 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 1 2026:BHC-AS:37960 Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, it is the petitioner’s case that his close blood relative Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar was issued with the certificate of validity (page 56) of the paper-book. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1 held that the following three prerequisites have to be satisfied while giving weightage to the certificate of validity issued in favour of the close blood relative:- (i) The applicant must establish a clear and specific relationship with the person in whose favour the validity certificate has been issued; (ii) The Scrutiny Committee must verify whether the validity certificate was granted to the applicant’s blood relative after due enquiry and in accordance with prescribed procedure; and (iii) The Scrutiny Committee must ascertain the genuineness of the validity certificate relied upon. 5. This Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others2 has, in paragraph 4 held thus :- “4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to 1 (2023) 16 SCC 415 2 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401 2 Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt Kanjar Bhat-Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by the Committee, even apart from the Government Resolution. We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. It would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no reason why public time or money should be spent in the committee testing the same evidence and making the same conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has been obtained by fraud.” 6. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) and Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the present petitioner being a close blood relative of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar is entitled to have his tribe claim validated as belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. 7. We have heard learned AGP for the respondent. Learned AGP supported the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and submitted that there is nothing on record except for the bald statement made by the petitioner that the said Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar is a close blood relative of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the genealogy produced before the Caste 3 Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt Scrutiny Committee, when the caste claim of the petitioner was verified, did not find a mention of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar’s name. 8. The writ petition is of the year 2004. The certificate of validity of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar dated 24th October 2013 has been brought on record by way of an amendment. No doubt in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) and Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) the law is well settled. However, the relationship of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar with the petitioner needs to be verified. The genealogy which was verified by the Vigilance Cell when the caste claim of the petitioner was considered did not find the name of Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar. Therefore, in such view of the matter, the relationship of the petitioner with Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar will have to be established before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the first instance. 9. In such view of the matter, an opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner in the interest of justice to establish his tribe claim on the basis of his submission made on oath that Gopal 4 Bhogale 8.wp-10907-2004.odt Mahadeo Bayaskar is his close blood relative. 10. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25th February 2004 passed by the respondent No.1 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Amravati to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh and in accordance with law after verification of the relationship of the petitioner with Gopal Mahadeo Bayaskar. 11. The petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 30th September 2026 at 11:00 a.m. The Caste Scrutiny Committee to take a decision in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within a period of sixteen weeks from 30th September 2026. The decision be communicated to the petitioner. 12. All contentions on merits are kept open. 13. Rule is partly made absolute in the above terms. 14. The writ petition is disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) 5 Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/09/2026 15:05:42