931WP8281-25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 931 WRIT PETITION NO. 3794 OF 2025 HANMANT MAROTI KALYANPAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS …. Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. R. Wakale, AGP for the Respondents-State …. AND 935 WRIT PETITION NO. 3798 OF 2025 USHATAI PANDHARINATH KALYANPAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS …. Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for the Respondents-State …. AND 937 WRIT PETITION NO. 3800 OF 2025 MAHESH HANMANTRAO KALYANPAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS …. Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for the Respondents-State …. AND 941 WRIT PETITION NO. 3804 OF 2025 MANISHA HANMANTRAO KALYANPAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AUG:8678-DB (( 2 )) 931WP8281-25 ... Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V., Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. D. S. Jape, AGP for Respondents-State CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 20.03.2025 PER COURT :- . By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging a common judgment and order of the scrutiny committee dated 07.03.2025 whereby, instead of validating their ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificates have been directed to confiscate and cancel. 2. Issue notice to the respondents. Learned AGPs waive service for respondent Nos.1 and 2 only. 3. We have heard both the sides finally. 4. The impugned judgment is an outcome of a vigilance enquiry conducted in common in respect of all these petitioners and the other individuals including one Sachin Vitthalrao Kalyanpad. Sachin having suffered invalidation, was before this court in Writ Petition No.9625 of 2023. By the judgment and order dated 07.08.2023, the order of the scrutiny committee in his matter was quashed and set aside and he was held entitled to have a certificate of 2 of 3 (( 3 )) 931WP8281-25 validity. Since, it is a matter of social status and when out of the same vigilance enquiry, Sachin has been held entitled to have a validity, even the petitioners deserve to be treated alike. 5. It is pertinent to note that admittedly, apart from Sachin’s validity, there is a validity of Mayuri Shriram Kalyanpad, issued by the order of this court. Similarly, there is a validity of Gayatri Govind Kalyanpad (Writ Petition No.9330 of 2018) Aniket shriram Kalyanpad (Writ Petition No.2315 of 2022) who are apparently related to the petitioners, as can be ascertained from the genealogy prepared during the vigilance enquiry and being part of the report at page no.46 of the paper book. 6. For these reasons, the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to have certificates of the validity. The committee shall issue ‘Mannervarlu’ scheduled tribe certificates of validity which have been subject to the final outcome of the matters which the committee has decided to re-open, including the review preferred in the matter of Mayuri D/o Shriram Kalyanpad. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] HRJadhav 3 of 3