Savita Vitthal Biramwar vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Savita Vitthal Biramwar vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2024 of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; matter remanded to that Committee to decide the tribe claim afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, expeditiously and preferably within eight months, with the petitioner directed to extend full cooperation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose tribe claim of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe was invalidated by Respondent No.2-Tribe Committee, deserves to be granted conditional validity on the strength of validity certificates held by her blood relatives. +1 more

Court's answer

In the proposals of the validity holders on whose certificates the petitioner relies, the genealogy submitted does not show the name of the petitioner's father or grandfather.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has to establish her relationship with the said validity holders, which can be ascertained only by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee.

Key takeaways

The matter needs to be remanded back to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to ascertain the genuineness of the documents and the petitioner's relationship with the validity holders.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Writ Petition No. 7865 of 2024, decided 04.02.2026 (Shinde & More, JJ.; per Shinde J.): Savita Vitthal Biramwar challenged the Scrutiny Committee's order dated 15.07.2024 invalidating her tribe claim of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe, seeking conditional validity on the basis of validity certificates held by blood relatives, including Naresh s/o Limbadri Biramwar (validity granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.14379 of 2021 by order dated 05.09.2023). The Court found that the genealogies submitted by the validity holders in their own proposals did not show the petitioner's father or grandfather, so the petitioner had to establish her relationship with them — ascertainable only by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The impugned judgment and order dated 15.07.2024 was quashed and set aside and the matter remanded for fresh decision after giving sufficient opportunity, to be completed preferably within eight months, with the petitioner to extend full cooperation. Writ Petition partly allowed.

2026:BHC-AUG:5565-DB

1

955-wp-7865-2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

955 WRIT PETITION NO. 7865 OF 2024

Savita Vitthal Biramwar VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And Others

Mr. Deepak Chaudhari h/f. Mr. S. G. Jayewar, Advocate for the Petitioner

Mr. V. M. Jaware, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. Santosh R. Yadav, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

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

DATED : FEBRUARY 04, 2026

PER COURT (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.):

Heard.

By this Writ Petition the petitioner is taking exception to order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Tribe Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner by inviting our attention to

the genealogy submits that the blood relatives mentioned in the said genealogy have been issued validity certificates both by Respondent No.2-Tribe Committee as well as to one of the blood relative, namely,

Naresh s/o Limbadri Biramwar by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.14379 of 2021. He, therefore,

Narwade/

2 955-wp-7865-2024.odt

urge that the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity.

Per contra, the learned AGP submits that the record of Naresh s/o Limbadri Biramwar (supra) depicts that in a genealogy submitted by him neither the petitioner nor his forefathers figures in it and therefore the petitioner has utterly failed to establish his relationship with the said validity holder. He submits that the petitioner has suppressed certain invalidities from his family. He, further submits that Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has rightly discarded the validity certificates relied upon by the petitioner, as the petitioner for the first time has annexed the genealogy showing the validity holder as his blood relative along with his say filed to the Vigilance Cell Report.

Be that as it may. We find that so far as the validity holders on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming conditional validity, in their proposal the genealogy submitted by them do not show the name of the petitioner’s father nor his grandfather, we therefore, find that petitioner has to establish his relationship with the said validity holders, which can be ascertained only by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. Suffice it to say that the matter needs to be remanded back to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee so as to ascertain the genuineness of the documents as well as to establish relationship of the petitioner with the validity holders. In that view of the matter, we are

Narwade/

3

955-wp-7865-2024.odt

inclined to remand the matter back. Hence the following order :-

:: O R D E R ::

i. The Writ Petition is partly allowed.

ii. Impugned judgement and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No.2Scrutiny Committee to decide the same afresh after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

iii. Since the matter is old one we, direct Respondent No.2Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight (8) months from today.

iv. We make it clear that the petitioner shall extend full cooperation for disposal of his tribe claim.

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]

Narwade/