1 24-wp 11776-2026.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11776 OF 2026 Shubham Digambar Machewad .. Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary Tribal Development Department And Others .. Respondents Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4. Mr. Sachin V. Kuptekar, Advocate for Respondent No. 3. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4 and learned advocate for respondent No. 3. 2. The tribe claim of the petitioner is pending with the committee – respondent No. 2. The proposal was submitted on 15.10.2024. Hearing has also taken place on 16.07.2026. The matter is still not concluded. It is the case of the petitioner that his real sister namely Sneha is already granted validity by the 2026:BHC-AUG:42254-DB 2 24-wp 11776-2026.odt committee on 03.10.2017. Another real sister namely Sandhya is granted validity on 26.06.2019. Another sister namely Sunanda is granted conditional validity by this Court on 24.01.2022. It is still the committee is asking for some other documents from the petitioner. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that in spite of this position the committee is unnecessarily asking for new documents for verification which are not required. He places reliance on the order passed by this Court at Principal Seat in Writ Petition No. 7696/2026 dated 29.07.2026. This Court in the said order had commented upon the conduct of the members of the committee and thereafter had directed to take action against the members. He further relies upon the judgment in the case of Anjali Sheshrao Kabade Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others in Writ Petition No. 9032/2026 wherein, this Court in similar circumstances had granted the validity to the petitioner therein. The learned advocate thus submits that it is a fit case where this Court can grant validity certificate. For that purpose he relies upon other judgments passed by this Court. 3 24-wp 11776-2026.odt 4. The learned A.G.P. submits that in every case it is for the committee to get the documents to their satisfaction and it is only upon that they have to decide the claim of the petitioner. In the present case, he submits, by now the committee could have decided the claim. He is not in a position to justify as to why the committee has taken such a long period and why some fresh documents are required by the committee. 5. Be that as it is, this Court finds that, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the committee to decide the claim of the petitioner pending before it as far as possible and in any case by 30.09.2026. 6. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.