904-WP-9532-2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9532 of 2026 Aditya Gajanan Sonawane ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _________ Mr. Sahil Choudhari for Petitioner. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Priyanka B. Chavan, AGP for State. __________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 27 JULY 2026. P.C. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs: (A) Call for record and proceedings of the enquiry. (B) Quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik-2, dated 04th September 2025 thereby invalidating his tribe claim as belonging to Koli Mahadev and for that purpose issue necessary orders. (C) Hold and declare that, the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe and further be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 Committee to issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner and for that purpose issue necessary orders.” 2. At the outset learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a judgment dated 16 February 2026 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the petitioner’s cousin brother in “Om Krishnaraj Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.”1 (‘Exhibit F’ to the petition). By the said order the Division Bench has set aside the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny 1 Writ Petition No.16611/2025 27 July 2026 P. V. Rane PRASHANT VILAS RANE Digitally signed by PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2026.07.31 13:25:19 +0530 904-WP-9532-2026.DOC Committee. The relevant observations as made by the Division Bench in allowing the said petition are required to be noted which read thus: “3. It is the submission of learned AGP that the vigilance cell inquiry was not done in the case of father. So far as the Petitioner’s aunt namely Vaishali Ramchandra Sonawane is concerned, though the then Scrutiny Committee issued the “Validity Certificate”, the present Scrutiny Committee observed several discrepancies in the documents. The vigilance inquiry was conducted in Vaishali’s case. However, the Scrutiny Committee noticed several discrepancies in the surname of the Petitioner’s aunt which according to the Committee should have dissuaded the then Scrutiny Committee in issuing the “Certificate of Validity” in favour of Petitioner’s aunt-Vaishali. 4. Thus, in our opinion, on the strength of the “Certificate of Validity” issued to the Petitioner’s father and his aunt, the Petitioner being close blood relative should be issued with the “Certificate of Validity” as belonging to “Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe”. Merely because a show cause notice being issued to te Petitioner’s father, is no reason to assume at this juncture that the “Caste Validity Certificate” would be recalled or cancelled. The show cause notice shall obviously be taken to its logical conclusion. The “Certificate of Validity” issued to the Petitioner’s father and his aunt from the paternal side is valid and subsisting. In such view of the matter, the issuance of “Certificate of Validity” to the Petitioner can be made subject to the outcome of the show cause notice issued to the close blood relatives. 5. The Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 4th September 2025 passed by the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue the “Validity Certificate” to the Petitioner as belonging to “Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe” within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. 6. It is made clear that the “Certificate of Validity” issued to the petitioner is subject to the outcome of the show cause notice referred to hereinabove and the same consequences upon its adjudication shall follow even in the case of Petitioner. The show cause notice be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. All contentions herein are kept open.” 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has, in fact, passed a common order in the case of the petitioner as also his cousin brother-Om Krishnaraj Sonawane who is the petitioner in the said petition decided by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The impugned order (Exhibit E to the petition at page 44) reflects that this is a common order in respect of Aditya Gajanan Sonawane, the petitioner herein and Om Krishnaraj 27 July 2026 P. V. Rane 904-WP-9532-2026.DOC Sonawane-Cousin brother of the petitioner. Considering the observations as made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it also appears to be not in dispute that, in the genealogy produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner is shown as the cousin brother of Om Krishnaraj Sonawane and vice versa. 4. In this view of the matter, Mr. Kakade, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State, also submits that the petitioner’s case stands covered by the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.16611 of 2025 (supra). 5. Considering such consensus and the factual undisputed position, the benefits of the orders passed by the co-ordinate Bench is also rendered to the petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, we allow this petition in terms of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in “Om Krishnaraj Sonawane Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.” (supra). 7. We accordingly direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to issue a caste validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. 8. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 27 July 2026 P. V. Rane