Quashed

Vedika Gunvant Tanmane v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Member Secretary

Bombay HC7 Mar 2026WP/2429/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the Scrutiny Committee's order rejecting the petitioner's Kunbi OBC caste claim on territorial and jurisdictional grounds. The Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on merits, permitting the petitioner to submit genealogy and supporting documents to substantiate her claim.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to Scrutiny Committee to decide caste claim afresh on merits, permitting submission of genealogy.

Vedika Gunvant Tanmane vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Member Secretary — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:9548-DB

¶2

1 913 wp 2429-26

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

913 WRIT PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2026

¶5

VEDIKA GUNVANT TANMANE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶7

Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R., Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State

¶8

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

¶9

DATED : 07/03/2026

¶10

P. C. : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)

¶11

Heard.

¶12

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 25/09/2025 passed by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner, claiming to belong to the “Kunbi” Other Backward Class, has been rejected solely on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, District Nanded, could not have issued the caste certificate and therefore, since the caste certificate has been issued by an authority outside the territorial jurisdiction, the same cannot be considered by the Committee. Secondly, the claim has been rejected on the ground that since the forefathers of the petitioner originally hail from a jurisdiction outside District Nanded, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to submit the proposal before the

¶13

2 913 wp 2429-26

¶14

Scrutiny Committee having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the petitioner’s forefathers reside.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been residing at Village Madnapur, Taluka Mahur, District Nanded for a long time. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, has also issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that she belongs to the “Kunbi” Other Backward Class. He further submits that when the petitioner submitted the said caste certificate for verification, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee refused to decide the proposal on merits on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. He further submits that the petitioner possesses sufficient material to substantiate her claim of belonging to the “Kunbi” Other Backward Class. In this regard, he invited our attention to the documents annexed to the petition. He, therefore, contends that the respondent–Scrutiny Committee, without affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her claim of belonging to the “Kunbi” Other Backward Class, has refused to decide the proposal on merits.

¶16

Per contra, the learned AGP submits that the petitioner ought to have placed on record the genealogy to substantiate her relationship with the persons whose documents are annexed to the writ petition. He further submits that unless the petitioner places on record a proper genealogy establishing her relationship with the persons on whose documents she relies, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee may not be in a position to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the question of deciding the

¶17

3 913 wp 2429-26

¶18

caste claim would arise only when the petitioner places on record sufficient material in support of her claim. He further submits that the documents placed on record before this Court do not form part of the proposal submitted by the petitioner before the respondent– Scrutiny Committee.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP, we find that the respondent–Scrutiny Committee has refused to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and on the ground that the SubDivisional Officer, Kinwat, District Nanded, had no authority to issue the caste certificate which was submitted for verification. We find that, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has specifically contended that she hails from District Nanded and that the competent authority has already issued a caste certificate in her favour, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee could not have refused to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner merely on the ground relating to the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, District Nanded as well as on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶20

We thus find that though the petitioner has placed certain documents on record before this Court, the same were not submitted along with the proposal before the respondent–Scrutiny Committee. We are of the view that, in order to afford a fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her caste claim, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee needs to decide the matter on merits after considering the documents that may be placed on

¶21

4 913 wp 2429-26

¶22

record by the petitioner. We also find that unless the petitioner places on record a proper genealogy to substantiate her relationship with the persons whose documents are sought to be relied upon, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee may not be in a position to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. We, therefore, permit the petitioner to place on record a proper genealogy along with the documents in support of her caste claim.

¶23

In that view of the matter, we pass the following order.

¶24

ORDER

¶25

A) The impugned order dated 25/09/2025 passed by the respondent- Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶26

B) The matter is remanded back to the respondent – Scrutiny Committee to decide the same afresh on merits thereby permitting the petitioner to file genealogy and supporting documents including the documents showing that the petitioner hails from Nanded District.

¶27

C) We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The respondent – Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶28

D) The petitioner undertakes to appear before the respondent – Scrutiny Committee on 18/03/2026.

¶29

5 913 wp 2429-26

¶30

E) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee shall make an endeavour to decide the caste claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶31

F) With these directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶32

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

¶33

VS Maind/-

Vedika Gunvant Tanmane v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vedika Gunvant Tanmane v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gajanan Rajendrarao Penlewad vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Secretary and Others

Shrikant Gangadhar Dhale vs Lobhaji Gatmal

The State of Maharashtra vs the Unionof India and Others

Kishor Limbraj Mali vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Hukumchand Chudiwal vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Hukumchand Chudiwal vs the State of Maharashtra and Others