1 1030 wp 1793-20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1030 WRIT PETITION NO. 1793 OF 2020 ATMARAM PANDURANG CHORMALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Sonavane Narendra D., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Deshbhushan Madkar h/f Mr. Manorkar Deepak S., Advocate for Respondent No.3 …. CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 28/01/2026 P. C. : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. By the present writ petition, the petitioner takes an exception to the order dated 21/11/2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Tribe Scrutiny Committee, by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to “Dhanwar” Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Vigilance Cell report, the reply filed by the petitioner on 20/09/2019 sets out the details furnished by the petitioner in respect of two documents; one pertaining to his father’s birth certificate of the year 1945 and the another pertaining to the year 2026:BHC-AUG:4455-DB 2 1030 wp 1793-20 1951, in the nature of a mortgage deed executed in the name of his grand father showing the caste as /Dhanwar”. He submits that both these documents having probative value, have been discarded by the Tribe Scrutiny Committee. 5. Per contra, learned AGP submits that, insofar as the document pertaining to the year 1945 is concerned, the same is only an extract and in the absence of disclosure of the source of the said document, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit therefrom. So far as documents pertaining to the year 1951, the same is sought to be relied upon post decision of petitioner’s tribe claim. 6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has made an application to place on record the oldest documents to substantiate his tribe claim, however, the same is admittedly sought to be placed on record subsequent to the decision arrived at by the Scrutiny Committee. 7. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made herein above. We, therefore, pass the following order. ORDER i) The writ petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 21/11/2019 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Tribe Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. iii) The Respondent – Tribe Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner 3 1030 wp 1793-20 afresh, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to establish his caste claim. vi) Considering the fact that the matter pertains to the year 2020, we direct the Scrutiny Committee to make an endeavour to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from today. v) With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) VS Maind/-