Urmila Vilas Phulbone vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Urmila Vilas Phulbone vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition partly allowed; impugned order dated 18.03.2025 of the Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; Committee directed to immediately issue validity certificate of belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe, co-terminus with the validity of the petitioner's father Vilas Manikrao Phulbone; petitioner shall not claim any equity.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity of belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe, given that conditional validity was granted to her real brother in Writ Petition No.10704/2024 although the validity of the father/original validity holder has been reopened. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity of belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe.

Ratio / Principle

The Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue a certificate of validity to the petitioner co-terminus with the validity of his/her father Vilas Manikrao Phulbone.

Key takeaways

The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the respondent - Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not claim any equity.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), per curiam order of Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ., dated 26.02.2026, in Writ Petition No. 4162 of 2025 (Urmila Vilas Phulbone vs. The State of Maharashtra): The Court partly allowed the petition challenging the Scrutiny Committee's order dated 18.03.2025 invalidating the petitioner's claim of belonging to the 'Koli Mahadev' scheduled tribe. Relying on its own earlier order dated 01.10.2024 in Writ Petition No. 10704/2024 (Gajanan Vilas Phulbone), wherein conditional validity had been granted to the petitioner's real brother even though the validity of the father and original validity holder, Vilas Manikrao Phulbone, had been reopened (a reopening notice having been issued by the Committee), the Court held that the petitioner likewise deserved conditional validity. The impugned order was quashed and set aside; the Committee was directed to immediately issue a validity certificate co-terminus with the father's validity, conditioned on the petitioner claiming no equity. The quoted paragraph of the earlier order refers to the consequences laid down in Shweta Balaija Isankar (supra) as a risk accepted by the validity applicant.

2026:BHC-AUG:9162-DB

1 967.WP.4162.25.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2025

URMILA VILAS PHULBONE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Jadhavar Pratap V. AGP for Respondent / State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Shahane Pradeep L.

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

DATE : 26.02.2026

PER COURT:

Heard.

By this writ petition the petitioner takes exception to the

impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee, thereby, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inviting attention of this Court to the order dated 01.10.2024, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10704/2024 in the case of Gajanan Vilas Phulbone

Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another , would submit that the

said validity holder to whom this Court has granted validity is real

2 967.WP.4162.25.odt

brother of the petitioner. He would submit that this Court has granted conditional validity to the real brother of the petitioner despite having observed that the validity of petitioner’s father has been reopened. He, therefore, urge that the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity.

Per contra, learned AGP would submit that the original validity holder namely Vilas Manikrao Phulbone whose validity certificate has been relied upon by this Court while issuing conditional validity to Gajanan Vilas Phulbone (supra), the validity of said Vilas is now sought to be reopened by the Scrutiny Committee and has even issued notice, thereby, proposing to reopen his validity certificate. He, however, does not dispute the relationship of the petitioner with the said validity holder to whom this Court has granted conditional validity. At this juncture it would be apt to reproduce the observations of this Court while granting conditional validity to Gajanan Vilas Phulbone (supra) and more particularly in paragraph No.13 which reads thus :

“13. In the light of above, the impugned order refusing to extend benefit of Vilas’s validity to the petitioner in spite of it having been issued by following due process of law would not be sustainable and is liable to be reversed, more so, when as submitted by petitioner’s learned advocate he is ready to run the risk of facing consequences as laid down in Shweta Balaji Isankar (supra).”

3 967.WP.4162.25.odt

In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity. We, therefore, pass the

following order:

O R D E R

I. The writ petition is partly allowed.

II. The impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee, is hereby quashed and set aside.

III. The committee shall immediately issue certificate of validity to the petitioner of belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe which shall be co-terminus with the validity of his father namely Vilas Manikrao Phulbone.

IV. The petitioner shall not claim any equity.

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

habeeb/