Deep S/O. Shyam Nandanwar vs the S.T. Certificate Verification Committee, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secretary

¶1

1 J-WP-285.25.odt

¶2

Judgment

¶3

2026:BHC-NAG:283-DB

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2025

¶6

PETITIONER: Deep S/o Shyam Nandanwar, Aged about 18 years, Occupation – Student, R/o. Goroba Nagar, Mahagaon Road, Umarkhed, Tq. Umarkhed, District – Yavatmal.

¶7

- Versus

¶8

RESPONDENT: The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee, Yavatmal, District – Yavatmal, Through its Member Secretary.

¶9

Mr. K. S. Narwade, Adv. for petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondents-State.

¶11

CORAM : S MT. M. S. JAWALKAR & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 6 th JANUARY, 2026.

¶13

JUDGMENT : (Per – SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Rule . Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The present petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal dated 10/12/2024. The

KHUNTE

2 J-WP-285.25.odt

Judgment

petitioner is claiming issuance of validity certificate of ‘Halbi’ Scheduled Tribe. He has placed on record as many as 21 documents showing his caste as Halbi. In these documents few documents are prior to 1950, which are as under:

¶21

Sr. No.	Description	Date	Caste
1. (Sr. No.14)	School admission entry of Motiram Gangaram s/o Bapuji Satvaji	01/08/1927	Halbi
2. (Sr. No.15)	School admission entry of Dattatraya Gangaram s/o Bapuji Satvaji	05/07/1934	Halbi
3.(Sr. No.16)	School admission entry of Shankar Gangaram s/o Bapuji Satvaji	14/10/1938	Halbi
4.	Extract of Birth of one girl child to Gangaram Satva-	23/02/1919	Halbi
5.	Extract of Birth of one boy child to Gangaram Satva	02/12/1926	Halbi

¶22

The Scrutiny Committee disbelieved these documents for the extraneous reasons, which are not sustainable at all. So far as documents at Sr. Nos.1 to 3 (mentioned at Sr.Nos.14 to 16 (Page292) in the order dated 10/12/2024) were duly verified by the Vigilance Cell, however, they were discarded on the ground that there is no supporting affidavit of parents to the extract of school record. The extracts of birth register of 1919 and 1926 are discarded by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that there is no further corroborative documents of revenue or school record of the child born in 1919 and 1926. Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee

KHUNTE

3 J-WP-285.25.odt

Judgment

raised doubt about these documents. The documents pertaining to pre-independence era are having more probative value and there is no necessity of corroboration of these documents. Surprisingly, the Scrutiny Committee relied on the documents of persons, who are not in relation with the petitioner or appearing in the family tree. In some documents, it is alleged by the Scrutiny Committee that the caste is mentioned as ‘Marathi’ and in some documents it is ‘Koshti’. However, it is not established by the Scrutiny Committee how these persons are in relation with the petitioner. Moreover, there is no caste by name ‘Marathi’, which is the language.

¶27

The Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate reply filed by the petitioner, wherein he specifically denied relationship with the persons whose documents are collected by the Vigilance Cell showing adverse entries. Those are not in blood relation. It is also observed by the Scrutiny Committee that one of the cousins has obtained caste certificate as he belongs to SBC. However, it would not come in the way of the petitioner. As this Court time and again and specifically in Mangesh Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.14111/2021) held that validity binds only claimant, not relatives, for the simple reason that they are not party to such adjudication. He can establish his claim independently. It is also held in Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and

KHUNTE

4 J-WP-285.25.odt

Judgment

Verification of Tribe Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113 that preindependence documents have great probative value.

¶32

It appears that the Scrutiny Committee has not given any consideration to the reply filed by the petitioner to show cause, wherein the petitioner has specifically denied the relationship in paras-8 and 9. The Scrutiny Committee appears to bent upon to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner and doubted the genuine documents for erroneous reasons. As such, the impugned order dated 10/12/2024 is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶33

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶34

The order dated 10/12/2024 passed by the respondentScheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal in Case No.11/510/Edu/122023/47682 is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶35

It is declared that the petitioner has duly established that he belongs to the “Halbi” Scheduled Tribe.

¶36

The respondent-Scrutiny Committee to issue caste certificate to the petitioner as he belongs to “Halbi” Scheduled Tribe within a period of four weeks.

¶37

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

¶38

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.)

¶39

Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/01/2026 17:34:35

¶40

KHUNTE

Deep S/O. Shyam Nandanwar v. the S.T. Certificate Verification Committee, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep S/O. Shyam Nandanwar v. the S.T. Certificate Verification Committee, Yavatmal, Thr. Member Secretary

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

Kiran Ganesh Waghmare and Others vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Veena D/O Manikrao Narayankar vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Akansha D/O Sunil Patil and Another vs State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Public Health, Mumbai and Ors.

Manoj Madhukar Jumale vs the S.T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member/Secretary, Amravati and Anr.

Rameshwar S/O. Vishnupant Umak vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Sachin S/O Sudhakar Nagpure vs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Thr. Member-Secretary, Amravati