Akash Ashok Dhenge Vs State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

¶1

21-WP-3295-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3295 OF 2023

¶5

1)	Akash Ashok Dhenge	]
	Age-30 years, Occupation-Service Residing at Village Madilage Bk, Taluka- Bhudargad, District Kolhapur.	] ] ] ] ...Petitioner.
	*Versus*
1)	State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai: 400 032	] ] ] ]
2)	District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee Kolhapur through it’s Chairman Kolhapur, District-Kolhapur	] ] ] ] ...Respondents.
3)	The Sub-Divisional Oicer, Radhanagari, Taluka-Bhudargad, District- Kolhapur.
4)	The Assistant Commissioner, Administrative Department Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune District – Pune. ——————
Mr Pe	. R. M. Haridas a/w Somnath Thengal i titioner.	/by Dilip Shinde for the

¶6

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶7

——————

¶8

Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ.

¶9

Date : December 23, 2025.

¶10

1 of 5

¶11

Shubham Talle

¶12

21-WP-3295-2023.doc

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: M. S. KARNIK,J)

¶14

1. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶15

2. The Petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 27^th November 2018 passed by Respondent No. 2 – District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as “the Committee” ), invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner.

¶16

3. It is prayed that this Court declare that the Petitioner belongs to Caste “Kunabi – Sr. No. 83” (OBC), which is notiied as Other Backward Class, and further direct Respondent No. 2 to issue a validity certiicate in favour of the Petitioner.

¶17

4. Learned AGP argued in support of the impugned order. It is submitted that the Petitioner has failed to place any documents in support of his caste claim, and therefore, the Committee has rightly invalidated the same. Learned AGP invited our attention to the indings recorded by the Committee.

¶18

5. It is noted that the Petitioner’s cousin, Dhenge Abhay Subhash, has been granted a caste certiicate by the Committee vide certiicate dated 13^th February 2025. The genealogy placed on record, dated 28^th March 2018, in the form of the aidavit of the Petitioner, indicates that Dhenge Abhay Subhash is the cousin-brother of the Petitioner-Akash. The Committee has not disputed this fact. In view of the issuance of the caste certiicate to the Petitioner’s cousin, we are inclined to allow

¶19

2 of 5

¶20

Shubham Talle

¶21

21-WP-3295-2023.doc

¶22

this Petition.

¶23

6. We are supported in our view by decision of this Court in the case

¶24

of Sanjay Pralhad Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra¹ . The relevant

¶25

paragraph of the decision which reads thus:

¶26

“4. The petitioner, therefore, approached this Court vide Writ Petition No. 6800 of 2013. This Court, vide order dated 18th February 2014, quashed and set aside the order dated 8th July 2013 passed by respondent No.2 in view of the law laid down in a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors. 2010 Mh.L.J. 401 wherein it was held that if a Committee has given inding about the validity of the caste of a candidate, another committee could not refuse the same status to a blood relative who applies subsequently. A merely diferent view on the same facts would not entitle the Committee dealing with the subsequent caste claim to reject it. Therefore, the Court observed that the order of the Scrutiny Committee was not sustainable and the same was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration.

¶27

We have perused the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, after referring to the validity certiicates of the real brothers of the petitioner, has held that the same are not binding upon the Committee since the petitioner has not produced any pre-1961 document.

¶28

We ind that the approach of the Committee is apart from being illegal, also contemptuous in nature. The petitioner, in addition to the other relevant documents, has produced the validity certiicates of his real brothers so also his validity claim is held genuine by the Vigilance Cell. There is no doubt that the report of the Vigilance Cell is not binding on the Committee. If the Committee is of the view that the claims of the petitioner's brothers were validated by practicing fraud, the Scrutiny Committee should have taken action against the petitioner's brothers. However, that has not

¶29

1 2019(6) ALL MR 218

¶30

3 of 5

¶31

Shubham Talle

¶32

21-WP-3295-2023.doc

¶33

been done. Merely because pre-1961 documents are not available, that cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

¶34

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Veriication of Tribe Claims & Ors. (2012) 1 SCC 113: [2011(6) ALL MR 929 (S.C.)], documents having origin prior to the Presidential notiication showing the said tribe as V.J.N.T., would be given more priority. However, in absence of the such documents, the other factors will have to be taken into consideration. In any case, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (Supra), the Committee was bound to issue validity certiicate.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. It is held and declared that the petitioner belongs to Pardeshi Bhamta which is recognized as V.J.N.T. The Committee is directed to issue the validity Certiicate within a period of two weeks from today.”

¶36

7. Furthermore, in the case of Apporva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & Ors.,² this Court upheld the grant of caste certiicates where valid genealogy and evidence were established. In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in allowing this Petition.

¶37

8. In view of the submissions of learned AGP, we make it clear that if the Committee inds that the claim of the Petitioner’s cousin was obtained by fraud, the Committee is at liberty to take appropriate action against the Petitioner.

¶38

2 2010 Mh.L.J. 401

¶39

4 of 5

¶40

Shubham Talle

¶41

21-WP-3295-2023.doc

¶42

9. In view of the above, we pass following order.

¶43

::ORDER::

¶44

a) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶45

b) Impugned order dated 27^th November 2018 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶46

c) The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue a caste validity certiicate in favour of the Petitioner, declaring him as belonging to “Kunabi – Sr. No. 83” (OBC), which is notiied as an Other Backward Class, expeditiously, and in any case, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶47

[ Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik, J. ]

¶48

TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO

¶49

Digitally signed by TALLE SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO Date: 2025.12.24 14:30:49 +0530

¶50

5 of 5

¶51

Shubham Talle

Akash Ashok Dhenge v. State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Ashok Dhenge v. State of Maha. Thr. Sec. Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Khanderao Kadam Vs Manojkumar Sadashiv Kadam and Ors.

Maruti Dharmaraj Dhandore and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary School Education and Sports Dept. and Ors.

Hayachand Babasaheb Desai Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Shamrao Namdeo Shinde Since Decd. Thr. Lrs Suman Shamrao Shinde Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Department of Higher and Technical Education and Ors.

Smt. Sulbha Mahadev Gavali and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Ors.

Vilasrao N. Jagtap and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Ors.