30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6202 OF 2022 Appasaheb Birunagi Pandit ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Ms. Supriya B. Koli i/by Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji, for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2026. P. C. : 1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 6th August, 2019 passed by the Respondent No.3 - Committee invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner's family originally hailed from Taluka Indi, District Bijapur, which was part of the old Bombay State, and after the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, Bijapur District is now part of the Karnataka State. She would further submit that the family of the Petitioner migrated from the Karnataka State and permanently settled in Solapur on or about 1959–1960. Jamadar-SL 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:8114-DB 30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc 3. She would further point out the school leaving certificate of the Petitioner's father, which reflects the Petitioner's caste as “Hindu Harijan (Mahar)” and is dated 31st May, 1959. She would submit that the only reason why the Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim is that the school leaving certificate is of Bijapur, which is in the State of Karnataka, and therefore, the Petitioner is the original resident of Karnataka. 4. She would draw support from the decision in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others1 to contend that the State origin would be the old Bombay State and not Karnataka State, which was the result of the Bombay Reorganisation Act. 5. Learned AGP would point out that the caste certificate of the Petitioner is of ‘Mang’, whereas the school leaving certificate of the Petitioner’s father is of “Hindu Harijan (Mahar)”. He submits that though both are Scheduled Castes, they are distinct entries under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Notification. He submits that it is for the Petitioner to obtain the correct caste certificate and thereafter apply for validity. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner's family 1 2001 (4) BOMCR582. Jamadar-SL 2 of 4 30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc hailed from Taluka Indi, District Bijapur, which was a part of the old Bombay State. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered that after the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, Bijapur District was made part of the Karnataka State and therefore, the State of origin would in fact be the old Bombay State. There is, however, substance in the contention of the learned AGP that the caste certificate which has been obtained is of ‘Mang’, whereas the school leaving certificate is of “Hindu Harijan (Mahar)”. Though both are listed as Scheduled Castes, the Petitioner has to obtain the correct caste certificate before submitting the same for validity. 8. In light of the above, the Petition is disposed of by permitting the Petitioner to apply for the correct caste certificate and thereafter approach the Caste Scrutiny Committee for validating the said caste certificate. 9. We find from the impugned order that there is no consideration by the Caste Scrutiny Committee of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960, by reason of which Bijapur District is now part of the Karnataka State. 10. The Committee invalidated the caste certificate only on the ground that the Petitioner and his family are original residents of Karnataka State and are required to obtain the certificate from the State of origin. The impugned order does not address the issue Jamadar-SL 3 of 4 30-WP-6202-2022(C).doc correctly and is therefore required to be quashed and set aside. 11. It is open for the Petitioner to obtain the correct caste certificate and to seek validity. 12. The Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the issue of validation of the caste certificate afresh, either of the certificate of “Mang”, or the fresh caste certificate, uninfluenced by the observations in the order of 6th August, 2019, by taking into consideration the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 and to take into consideration whether the State of origin by virtue of the Bombay Reorganisation Act would be the old State of Bombay and not the State of Karnataka. 13. The Petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar-SL 4 of 4