Durgesh Subhash Pardeshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Durgesh Subhash Pardeshi vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 07.10.2024 of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; matter remanded to the Committee to verify the genuineness of the caste validity certificate issued to Gangaram laxmansing Pardeshi, to give the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his relationship with the said validity holder, and, if required, to conduct a fresh Vigilance Cell Enquiry; Rule made absolute; Writ Petition disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Validity of the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta', Vimukt Jati (A), which was invalidated by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee's order dated 07.10.2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Committee.

Ratio / Principle

The Court found that there are specific pleadings in the Writ Petition that the validity certificate of the petitioner's blood relative could not be placed on record when the proposal of the petitioner's tribe claim was submitted.

Key takeaways

In order to give the petitioner a fair opportunity to substantiate his tribe claim, the matter needs to be remanded back to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee.ratio¶20
On remand, Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee shall verify the genuineness of the caste validity certificate issued in favour of Gangaram laxmansing Pardeshi, including giving the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his relationship with the said validity holder, if required.ratio¶26
Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee may also conduct a fresh Vigilance Cell Enquiry in order to ascertain the relationship of the petitioner with the said validity holder.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Durgesh Subhash Pardeshi v. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 10316 of 2025, decided 11 March 2026 (Coram: Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ.; per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.). Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent. The Court quashed and set aside the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee's order dated 07.10.2024 invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta', Vimukt Jati (A), and remanded the matter to the Committee, because the petition contained specific pleadings that the validity certificate of the petitioner's blood relative, Gangaram laxmansing Pardeshi (issued 29.09.2018), could not be placed on record or shown in the genealogy submitted with the tribe claim proposal. On remand, the Committee is directed to verify the genuineness of that validity certificate, to give the petitioner an opportunity to substantiate his relationship with the validity holder, and may conduct a fresh Vigilance Cell Enquiry for that purpose. Rule made absolute; Writ Petition disposed of.

936-wp-10316-2025

2026:BHC-AUG:10800-DB

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

936 WRIT PETITION NO. 10316 OF 2025

Durgesh Subhash Pardeshi VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

Mr. Pralhad C. Bhagure, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondents/State

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 11^TH MARCH 2026

PER COURT (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.) :-

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission.

The petitioner is taking exception to the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Rajput Bhamta’, Vimukt Jati (A) has been invalidated.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the pleadings of the petition submit that one of the blood relative namely, Gangaram laxmansing Pardeshi to whom Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has issued validity certificate on 29.09.2018 could not be shown in the genealogy submitted by the petitioner before the Respondent

Narwade

936-wp-10316-2025 -2-

No.2-Scrutiny Committee. He would further submit that the petitioner was not aware that the said validity holder who is his blood relative has been granted validity and therefore the same could neither be placed on record nor his name was mentioned in the genealogy. He, therefore, submit that in order to get fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his tribe claim the matter may be remanded back to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee.

Per contra, the learned AGP would submit that the petitioner has failed to produce oldest document of pre-independence era. He would further submit that there are certain interpolations and contra entries which show that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Rajput Bhamta’, Vimukt Jati (A). He would further submit that even the petitioner has failed to produce the school record of his father. He therefore submit that there is not substance in the Writ Petition.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP, we find that there are specific pleadings in the Writ Petition that the validity certificate of blood relative of the petitioner could not be placed on record when the proposal of petitioner’s tribe claim was submitted.

We thus find that in order to get fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his tribe claim the matter needs to be

Narwade

936-wp-10316-2025 -3-

remanded back to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

O R D E R

i. Impugned order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to Respondent No.2Scrutiny Committee.

ii. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee shall verify the genuineness of the caste validity certificate issued in favour of Gangaram laxmansing Pardeshi including giving opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his relationship with the said validity holder, if required. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee may also conduct fresh Vigilance Cell Enquiry in order to ascertain the relationship of the petitioner with the said validity holder.

iii. Writ Petitions stands disposed of.

iv. Rule is made absolute in above terms.

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]

Narwade