40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 12265 OF 2026 Ajinkya Lahu Kadam Age : 34 years, Occu: Student, R/at. Bhatnimgaon, Post Bhandgaon, Taluka Indapur, District Pune, Pune – 413 103. …Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. Through its Secretary. …Respondents 2. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune, Through its Member Secretary, 5th Floor, C Wing, Kapil Towers, Pune – 411 001. 3. The Principal Arts, Science and Commerce College Indapur, District Pune, Pune – 413 106. Mr. Harsh P. Dedhia, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Piyush Pande, “B” Panel Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: R. I. CHAGLA AND FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 21st SEPTEMBER 2026. Rajeshri Aher RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date: 2026.09.23 16:35:38 +0530 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC ORDER :- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing and setting aside of an impugned Order dated 1st July, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 2–Scheduled Tribes Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune (hereinafter referred to as, "Scrutiny Committee" for short), invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner. 3. The Petitioner had applied before Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee for verification of his tribe certificate, claiming to belong to the Thakar tribe in the year 2013. The Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee rejected the claim and cancelled the tribe certificate on the ground that the tribe certificate was not in the prescribed format, while granting liberty to the Petitioner to obtain a prescribed Form C certificate and submit a fresh claim. 4. Respondent No. 3, Principal of Arts, Science, and Commerce College, Indapur, District Pune, forwarded the Petitioner's fresh tribe certificate to Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee for Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC verification. The Petitioner filed a fresh application along with all necessary documents to prove his claim in November 2022. 5. Accordingly, the validity proceedings were registered before Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee as Case No. 93 of 2022. The Police Vigilance Department submitted an Inquiry Report on 28th February, 2023, after tracing blood relatives and examining caste entries in school, birth, and death registers. 6. Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee issued a notice on 4th July, 2023, calling upon the Petitioner to appear and produce relevant documents in support of his tribe claim. The Petitioner produced documents as sought by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee, which included birth and death register entries relating to his blood relatives from 1934 onwards. 7. The Petitioner places reliance upon Orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2394 of 2023, filed by Ankush Gulabrao Kadam, and Writ Petition No. 2658 of 2024, filed by Digvijay Ankush Kadam, who are the paternal blood relatives of the Petitioner, and by which Orders the Tribe Validity Certificates were directed to be Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC issued by the Scrutiny Committee to the Petitioner's said paternal blood relatives. 8. Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned Order dated 1st July 2026, in Case No. 93 of 2022, rejecting the Petitioner's claim for a Tribe Validity Certificate. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has tendered a genealogy tree showing the Petitioner's blood relatives, including the said paternal blood relatives to whom the Tribe Validity Certificate was directed to be issued by this Court vide Orders passed in the respective Petitions filed by them. 10. Mr. Dedhia, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, referred to the Orders dated 11th June 2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 2394 of 2023 and 2658 of 2024 in the case of Petitions filed by Ankush Gulabrao Kadam and Digvijay Ankush Kadam, respectively, wherein this Court had found that the Petitioners had established that their blood relations from the paternal side were granted Tribe Validity Certificates. Accordingly, this Court quashed and set aside the impugned Orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee and Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC allowed the Writ Petitions. He submitted that a similar Order is required to be passed in the present case, considering that those Writ Petitions had been filed by the present Petitioner's blood relatives. 11. Mr. Dedhia, submitted that, in spite of citing the Orders passed by this Court, by which the paternal blood relatives' Tribe Validity Certificates were directed to be issued, this has been disregarded by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee while referring to certain inconsistencies in the records which had been submitted in respect of certain paternal blood relatives. He submitted that it has been held by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and Others1, that where the Scrutiny Committee has been satisfied that the person in whose favor the Tribe Validity Certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the Applicant, and a lawful inquiry has been conducted before issuing the validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue the validity certificate. He has accordingly sought for the prayers in the Petition to be granted. 1(2023 16 SCC 41) Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC 12. Mr. Pande, learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2–Scrutiny Committee, has supported the impugned Order. He submitted that findings of the impugned Order show that there were blood relatives of the Applicant whose school and revenue records from 1934, 1938, 1959, 1982, 1984, and 1985 contained caste entries as "Hindu Maratha," "Maratha," and "Thakkar Bhat". In the grandfather's service book for 1927 to 1946, the caste was recorded as "Hindu Maratha". A cousin grandfather's service book also recorded the caste as "Hindu Maratha". 13. Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee has accordingly held that entries from this period are older, and their probative and evidentiary value is high. The Petitioner had not submitted evidence containing records inconsistent with the said claim to the committee during the inquiry and hearing. Accordingly, Mr. Pande submitted that Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee was justified in passing the impugned Order invalidating the tribe validity claim of the Petitioner. He submitted that the Writ Petition is without merit and be dismissed. 14. Having considered the submissions, in our view, this Writ Petition is covered by the Order dated 27th August 2026 passed in Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC Writ Petition No. 10712 of 2026 (Rushank Sitaram Kataskar, Minor, through Father and Natural Guardian Sitaram Vitthal Kataskar v. State of Maharashtra and Another). 15. This Court, in a similar case as the present, had considered that the Petitioner's paternal blood relatives had been issued Tribe Validity Certificates. Though there were show-cause notices issued alleging fraud, this Court held that this would not suffice where validity certificates have been issued by the competent Scrutiny Committee to these blood relatives of the Petitioner on the paternal side. 16. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) that upon the Scrutiny Committee having been satisfied that the person in whose favor the Tribe Validity Certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the applicant, and a lawful inquiry has been conducted before issuing the validity certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue the validity certificate. 17. This Court, in the aforesaid decision, had also, in the operative part of the Order, while allowing the Writ Petition, Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC directed that if any of the validity holders on whom the Petitioner before this Court has relied upon for claiming validity suffer invalidation in the reopened cases, Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to reopen the Petitioner's case as well. The consequences suffered by those candidates whose claims are invalidated (after reopening of the case) would befall this Petitioner as well. 18. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner's paternal blood relatives have been issued Tribe Validity Certificates to the effect that they belong to the "Thakar" tribe, to which the present Petitioner also claims to belong. 19. These paternal blood relatives had filed Writ Petitions in this Court which have been adverted to above. In these Writ Petitions, this Court had set aside the Orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue Tribe Validity Certificates to them. The Orders have also been annexed to the present petition at Exhibit K. 20. The reason for disregarding the Tribe Validity Certificates issued to the Petitioner's paternal blood relatives is merely on the Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC ground that there are certain blood relatives of the Petitioner whose school and revenue records show a different tribe. Given the settled law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), we do not accept such a reason for disregarding the Tribe Validity Certificates issued to the Petitioner's blood relatives upon the conduct of a lawful inquiry. 21. We accordingly pass a similar Order as has been passed by this Court in Rushank Sitaram Kataskar (supra): :: O R D E R :: (i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed; (ii) The impugned Order dated 1st July 2026 passed by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee in Case No. 93 of 2022 is quashed and set aside; (iii) The Tribe Validity Certificate in respect of the “Thakar Tribe” shall be issued by Respondent No. 2–Scrutiny Committee to the Petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of this Order; Rajeshri Aher 40 WP 12265 OF 2026.DOC (iv) If any of the validity holders on whom the Petitioner before this Court has relied upon for claiming validity, suffer invalidation in the reopened cases, Respondent No. 2– Scrutiny Committee would be at liberty to reopen the Petitioner's case as well, and the consequences suffered by those candidates whose claims are invalidated (after reopening of the case), would befall on this Petitioner as well; (v) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms; (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. (FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.) (R. I. CHAGLA, J.) Rajeshri Aher