Nivrutti Shankar Totwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Nivrutti Shankar Totwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 15/12/2025 of respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; Scrutiny Committee directed to issue caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe; certificate made subject to the outcome of the reopening of the blood relative's caste claim; petitioner not to claim equities.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned common judgment and order dated 15/12/2025 of respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to 'Mannervarlu', should be quashed in view of the order dated 22/12/2025 in Writ Petition No.15538 of 2025 concerning a blood relative, where the identical impugned order was set aside and validity granted.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 15/12/2025 passed by respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The Committee shall issue a caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannervarlu' - Scheduled Tribe.

Key takeaways

The caste validity certificate to be issued to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the reopening of the caste claim of the blood relative on the basis of which the certificate is issued.ratio¶19
The petitioner shall not claim equities.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Scheduled Tribe claim — 'Mannervarlu' — tribe claim invalidated by Scrutiny Committee by common judgment and order dated 15/12/2025 — writ petition partly allowed — impugned order quashed and set aside and Committee directed to issue caste validity certificate — certificate made subject to outcome of reopening of the caste claim of the blood relative on the basis of which it is to be issued — petitioner not to claim equities — Court acted on its earlier order dated 22/12/2025 in Writ Petition No.15538 of 2025 (Vithal s/o Laxman Totwad vs. State of Maharashtra and others), where the same impugned judgment and order was set aside and validity granted, the petitioner's relationship with that petitioner being undisputed by the AGP.

2026:BHC-AUG:5071-DB

1 923 WP 1322-26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

923 WRIT PETITION NO. 1322 OF 2026

NIVRUTTI SHANKAR TOTWAD VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Mr. Phatale Sagar S., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State

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

DATED : 05/02/2026

ORAL ORDER : (Per : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

Heard.

By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 15/12/2025 passed by respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, by which the tribe claim of the petitioner belonging to “Mannervarlu” has been invalidated.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting our attention to the order dated 22/12/2025, passed by this Court in Writ Petition

No.15538 of 2025 in the case of Vithal s/o Laxman Totwad vs. State of Maharashtra and others ., submits that the same impugned judgment and order challenged by the said petitioner, has been set aside by this court by granting validity.

2 923 WP 1322-26

Learned AGP does not dispute the said position as well as relationship of the petitioner with the petitioners in Writ Petition No.15538 of 2025. In that view of the matter, we pass following order.

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 15/12/2025, passed by respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The Committee shall issue caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner of belonging to “Mannervarlu”- Scheduled Tribe.

(ii) The caste validity certificate to be issued to the petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the reopening of the caste claim of the blood relative on the basis of which the caste validity certificate shall be issued.

(iii) The petitioner shall not claim equities.

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

VS Maind/-