Partly allowed¶21

Deepak Digambar Baste and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC3 Feb 2026WP/1148/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mannervarlu Scheduled Tribe; caste/tribe validity certificate; conditional validity; blood relatives (cousin sisters) as validity holders; Scrutiny Committee invalidation quashed and set aside; reliance on W.P. No. 12031 of 2024 (dt. 24.10.2024); subject to re-verification of earlier validity holders; Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; Writ Petition No. 1148 of 2026; decided 27.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside; Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to 'Mannervarlue' Scheduled Tribe, subject to the outcome of its re-verification of the earlier validity holders. ¶21

Deepak Digambar Baste and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose tribe claim of belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, deserve to be granted conditional validity certificates in view of the conditional validities already granted to their cousin sisters (blood relatives) by this Court.

¶16

Court's answer

Since the blood relatives (cousin sisters) of the petitioners had been granted validity by this Court, the petitioners deserve conditional validity certificates.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The validity certificates to be issued are subject to the outcome of the re-verification undertaken by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee in respect of the earlier validity holders relied upon by the subsequent validity holders as well as the petitioners.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Scheduled Tribe claim – Tribe claim of the petitioners as belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee (order dt. 11.12.2025). The cousin sisters of the petitioners held conditional validities granted by this Court (W.P. No. 12031 of 2024, dt. 24.10.2024); the learned AGP did not dispute those validities nor the petitioners' relationship with the validity holders. Holding the petitioners deserving of conditional validities, the Court partly allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order, and directed Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificates of belonging to 'Mannervarlue' Scheduled Tribe, subject to the outcome of the Committee's re-verification of the earlier validity holders relied upon by the subsequent validity holders and the petitioners.

¶1

986-wp-1148-2026

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:14400-DB

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

986 WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2026

¶6

Deepak Digambar Baste And Another VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶8

Mr. Sunil Mahadevappa Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondents/State

¶9

... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 27^TH MARCH 2026

¶10

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

¶11

By the present Writ Petition the petitioners are taking exception to order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioners of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe have been invalidated.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has committed an error by invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioners though the petitioners have produced on record the validities granted to their cousin sisters by this Court. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the orders passed by this Court in the case of Sneha d/o. Hanumant Baste and Sakshi Hanumant Baste Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another dated 24.10.2024 in Writ Petition

¶13

Narwade

¶14

986-wp-1148-2026 -2-

¶15

No.12031 of 2024 to content that the cousin sisters of the petitioners have been granted conditional validities by this Court.

¶16

He would therefore submit that since the blood relatives of the petitioners have been granted validity by this Court, the petitioners deserve to be granted conditional validities. He therefore urge that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶17

Learned AGP does not dispute with regard to granting conditional validities to the cousin sisters of the petitioners nor he has disputed the relationship of the petitioners with those validity holders.

¶18

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the petitioners deserve conditional validities. We, therefore pass the following order :-

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

¶21

ii. The impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶22

iii. Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to ‘Mannervarlue’, Scheduled Tribe.

¶23

iv. The said tribe validity certificates will be subject to outcome of

¶24

Narwade

¶25

986-wp-1148-2026 -3-

¶26

the re-verification undertaken by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee in respect of earlier validity holders which are relied upon by the subsequent validity holders as well as the petitioner.

¶27

v. Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶28

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.]

¶29

[SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]

¶30

Narwade

Deepak Digambar Baste and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Digambar Baste and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pragati Vishwas Kshirsagar vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Atharv Rahul Chilwar Minor Thr Guardian Father Rahul Ramesh Chilwar vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Another

Shubham Babasaheb Range vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Another

Sanjay Narsingrao Sidhewad vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Radhabai Gokul Gandhale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Pradip Pralhad Lad vs the State of Maharashtra