902-WP-3777-2022 (C)-J.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3777 OF 2022 Vijay Balu Siddhagavali, Aged 30 Years, Residing at Chavan Colony, Ashta, Taluka : Walva, District : Sangli. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee, Sangli Through it’s Member Secretary, Having its oice at Dr. Babasaheb Amedkar Samajik Nyay Bhavan, Old Budhgaon Road, District : Sangli – 416 416. 3. Sub Divisional Oicer, (Revenue), Walwa Division, Islampur, District : Sangli. ....Respondents. —————— Mr. Shantanu B. Patil with Mr. Kunal Nalwade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Reserved on : September 11, 2026. Pronounced on : September 22, 2026. Gaikwad RD 1 of 5 902-WP-3777-2022 (C)-J.doc JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.) 1. Heard inally by consent of both the sides at the admission stage. 2. Impugned in this writ petition is the order dated 24th December 2021 passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the Petitioner towards 'Masanjogi' Nomadic Tribe. 3. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to the 'Masanjogi' Nomadic Tribe. He is having the caste certiicate to that efect. Since the Petitioner wanted to pursue further education from the reserved seat, he submitted his caste certiicate for veriication to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee referred the Petitioner's claim for vigilance inquiry. After receipt of the Vigilance inquiry report, the Petitioner was given opportunity of hearing. The Petitioner relied on several documents in support of his claim. By the impugned order, the claim came to be invalidated mainly on the ground that, the validity holder denied his blood relations with the Petitioner. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, one of the documents relied upon by the Petitioner in support of his caste claim was the validity certiicate of his cousin brother-Sainath, who initially, due to misunderstanding, submitted the aidavit before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee denying blood relations with the Gaikwad RD 2 of 5 902-WP-3777-2022 (C)-J.doc Petitioner. He further submitted that, when the said cousin brother- Sainath came to know his blood relations with the Petitioner, he has submitted the aidavit in this writ petition admitting the blood relations with the Petitioner. He further submitted that, there are three validity holders in the blood relations of the Petitioners, namely, Pratik Rajendra Siddhagavali, Aditya Mahesh Siddhagavali and Lokesh Krishna Siddhagavali. He submitted that, once the blood relatives of the Petitioners are issued the validity certiicates towards the same caste, the Petitioner is entitle for the validity certiicate. He submitted that, the matter be remanded to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration in view of the subsequent developments. 5. It is submitted by learned AGP that, since the Petitioner's cousin brother-Sainath, having the validity certiicate, denied the blood relations with the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the tribe claim and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. 6. Perusal of the papers enclosed with this writ petition goes to show that, the Petitioner had submitted the genealogy by way of the aidavit before the Scrutiny Committee. The said genealogy is reproduced below: Gaikwad RD 3 of 5 902-WP-3777-2022 (C)-J.doc Marayappa siddhagavali (Great Great Grand Father) Govindappa Gangaram (Great Grand Father) (Paternal Great Grand Father) Balu Sanjay (Father) (Paternal Uncle) Vijay Sainath (Self) (Cousin Brother) 7. There appears no dispute about the said genealogy. The impugned order goes to show that, though the Petitioner submitted in all 18 documents in support of his claim, he mainly relied on the validity certiicate of his cousin brother-Sainath, who denied the blood relation with the Petitioner. The Petitioner relies on the aidavit of Sainath Sanjay Gavali stating that, due to misunderstanding, he denied his relation with the Petitioner, when the matter was under consideration before Respondent No.2–Scrutiny Committee, however, later on he learnt that the Petitioner was his relative from the paternal side and his validity certiicate was being relied by the Petitioner. Further, the Petitioner has tendered the additional aidavit alongwith the copies of the validity certiicates dated 6th January 2026, 11th February 2026 and 16th June 2026 in respect of his blood relatives, which are subsequent to the order impugned. Gaikwad RD 4 of 5 902-WP-3777-2022 (C)-J.doc 8. In view of the above subsequent events, the ends to justice would meet, if the order impugned is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration and passing appropriate order by giving opportunity to the Petitioner to prove his relations with the validity holders, namely, Sainath, Pratik, Aditya and Lokesh. Hence, the following order: ORDER i) The order dated 24th December 2021 passed by Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Petitioner's claim towards 'Masanjogi' Nomadic Tribe is quashed and set aside. ii) The Petitioner's tribe claim is remanded to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the Petitioner to prove his relations with the validity holders. iii) The Petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee on 28th September 2026. iv) The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 5 of 5 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2026.09.22 18:00:55 +0530