Gajanan Rajendrarao Penlewad vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Gajanan Rajendrarao Penlewad vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30.09.2025 quashed and set aside; respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee directed to issue tribe validity certificate ('Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe) to the petitioner within four weeks, subject to conditions: (a) validity subject to revocation/cancellation of the validity holders' certificates; (b) petitioner shall not claim any equity; (c) petitioner shall cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee; validity holders whose validities are proposed to be reopened shall cooperate with reverification proceedings.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose tribe claim of belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, deserves to be granted conditional validity as a blood relative of validity holders.

Court's answer

The Scrutiny Committee has not disputed the petitioner's relationship with the validity holders, including Siddhant Linguram Penlewad, and itself recorded in the impugned order that the validity holders are blood relatives of the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's relationship with the validity holders is disputed neither by the Scrutiny Committee nor by the learned AGP, the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tribe claim — 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe — invalidation by Scrutiny Committee quashed; conditional validity granted to blood relative of validity holders. The High Court (Aurangabad Bench) found that the Scrutiny Committee had not disputed the petitioner's relationship with the validity holders, including a distant cousin whose claim, though initially invalidated, had been granted conditional validity by the Court in Writ Petition No.3664 of 2020 (order dated 06.07.2023) after considering the entire self-same record. Holding the petitioner deserving of conditional validity, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 30.09.2025 and directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue a tribe validity certificate within four weeks, subject to: (a) the validity being subject to revocation or cancellation of the validity holders' certificates; (b) the petitioner claiming no equity; (c) the petitioner cooperating with the Scrutiny Committee; and directed that validity holders whose validities are proposed to be reopened shall cooperate with reverification proceedings. Writ Petition partly allowed and disposed of.

2026:BHC-AUG:9580-DB

1 968.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

968 WRIT PETITION NO. 12831 OF 2025

GAJANAN RAJENDRARAO PENLEWAD

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THORUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V. AGP/APP for Respondent/State : Mr. N.B. Patil

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATE : 06.03.2026

PER COURT : (PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent/State.

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in invalidating the tribe claim of petitioner despite having pointed out several validities issued both by the Scrutiny Committee itself as well as by this Court to the blood relatives of the petitioner.

He would further submit that the distant cousin brother viz. Siddhant Linguram Penlewad whose tribe claim was invalidated had

2 968.doc

approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3664 of 2020 wherein, this Court by an order dated 06.07.2023 after considering the entire self-same record has granted conditional validity. He therefore, submit that the petitioner being a blood relative of the said validity holder deserves to be granted conditional validity.

Per contra, learned AGP would submit that there are certain contra entries showing that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe. He has also pointed out that the genealogies submitted by the said validity holders and the genealogy submitted by the petitioner does not tally. He submits that considering the fact that the caste of petitioner’s forefathers has been shown as ‘Kapawar’, that itself is sufficient to hold that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe. He therefore, urge that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.

We have perused the impugned order by the Scrutiny Committee. We find that the Scrutiny Committee has not disputed the relationship of the petitioner with the validity holders including Siddhant Linguram Penlewad (supra). On the contrary, the Scrutiny Committee itself has referred in the impugned order holding that validity holders are blood relatives of the petitioner.

Since, the relationship of the petitioner is neither disputed by the Scrutiny Committee nor by the learned AGP, we find that the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity. We therefore, pass the following order :

3 968.doc

ORDER

i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe is hereby quashed and set-aside.

iii) The respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee shall issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’ Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks from today subject to following conditions :

a) The validity shall be subject to the revocation or cancellation of the certificate of the validity holders;

b) The petitioner shall not claim any equity;

c) The petitioner shall cooperate with the Scrutiny Committee.

iv) We direct that the validity holders whose validities are proposed to be reopened by the respondent/Scrutiny Committee shall co-operate with the proceedings of reverification.

v) With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )

vsj..