Partly allowed

Atmaram Pandurang Totewad v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC18 Mar 2026WP/8928/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, uncle and nephew, challenged the Scrutiny Committee's invalidation of their Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe claims. As this Court had already granted conditional caste validity to a blood relative on the same record, the petitions were partly allowed: the impugned order was quashed and conditional validity certificates directed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned invalidation orders quashed; Scrutiny Committee directed to issue conditional Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe validity certificates, subject to pending reverification of Devidas Totewad's validi

Atmaram Pandurang Totewad Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:12179-DB

¶2

(1)

¶3

954-955.odt

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

954 WRIT PETITION NO. 8928 OF 2025

¶6

ATMARAM PANDURANG TOTEWAD

¶7

….Petitioner

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶10

…..Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

955 WRIT PETITION NO. 9844 OF 2025

¶13

ROHIDAS VISHNUDAS TOTEWAD THR FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN VISHNUDAS PANDURANG TOTEWAD

¶14

….Petitioner

¶15

VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

¶17

…..Respondents

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. O. B. Boinwad AGP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil

¶19

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

¶20

DATED : MARCH 18, 2026

¶21

ORAL ORDER (PER ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J):-

¶22

Heard.

¶23

By these Writ Petitions, the petitioners are challenging the common judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent

¶24

No.2 / Scrutiny committee by which the tribe claims of the petitioners

¶25

of belong to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe have been invalided.

¶26

(2)

¶27

954-955.odt

¶28

The petitioners are uncle and nephew respectively. The brother of petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9844 of 2025 namely Shravan Vishnudas Totewad, whose tribe claim was invalidated by the respondent No,2/ Scrutiny committee had approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 12484 of 2024 and this Court by an order dated 29.11.2024, after considering the selfsame record, has granted conditional validity.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submit that, the petitioners deserve to be granted conditional validity in the light of validity granted to their blood relative.

¶30

Learned A.G,P. does not dispute the aspect of granting conditional validity to the blood relative of the petitioners by this Court nor the relationship of the petitioners with the said validity holder.

¶31

In that view of the matter, without dealing with the reasons elaborately, we propose to pass the following order.

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

(I) The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.

¶34

(II) The impugned judgment and order dated 16.06.2025 passed by respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶35

(III) The respondent No.2/ Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificates of belonging to “Koli Mahadev”

¶36

(3)

¶37

954-955.odt

¶38

Scheduled Tribe to the petitioners.

¶39

(IV) The caste validity certificates issued in favour of petitioners will be subject to outcome of proposed reverification to be undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of the validity certificate of one Devidas Totewad, who has earlier granted validity certificate and on whose validity certificate the petitioners have placed reliance.

¶40

(V) The petitioners will not claim any equities.

¶41

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE ) JUDGE

¶42

(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE

¶43

YSK/

Atmaram Pandurang Totewad v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atmaram Pandurang Totewad v. the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases