Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Rupali Rajendra Majkuri vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9743 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9743 Bom
Judgement Date : 18 December, 2017

Bombay High Court
Rupali Rajendra Majkuri vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 18 December, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                     
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
                                                   
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 6681 OF 2017


        Rupali Rajendra Majkuri,
        age: 23 years, Occu. Student,
        r/o Katneshwar, Tq. Purna,
        Dist. Parbhani.                               .. PETITIONER.

                VERSUS

        1. The State of Maharashtra,
        Tribal Development Department,
        through its Secretary,
        Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

        2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate,
        Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, 
        through its Deputy Director / Member.

        3. The Deputy Collector/
        District Supply Officer,
        Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.

        4. The Sub Divisional Officer,
        Degloor, Tq. Degloor,
        Dist. Nanded.

        5. The Dean / Principal,
        Government Medical College 
        and Hospital (GHATI), Aurangabad.

        6. The Registrar,
        Maharashtra University of Health Sciences,
        Nashik, Dindori Road, Nashik,
        Tq. & Dist. Nashik.             .. RESPONDENTS.

                                       ...
                Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Jadhavar Pratap V.
                 AGP for Respondent/State: Mr.R.V. Dasalkar.
                                       ...




::: Uploaded on - 22/12/2017                          ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:52:19 :::
                                                                          6681.17wp
                                           2

                                      CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA 
                                             & V.L. ACHLIYA,JJ.

Dated: DECEMBER,18, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT: [Per Gangapurwala, J]

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard

finally with consent of the parties.

2. The tribe certificate of Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe

issued to the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer,

Parbhani has been cancelled and confiscated on the

ground that the Sub Divisional Officer, Parbhani did not

have jurisdiction. Liberty is given to the petitioner to get

certificate from the competent authority.

3. Mr.Jadhavar, learned Advocate for the petitioner

states that father of the petitioner has been issued with

tribe certificate of Koli Mahadev - scheduled tribe by Sub

Divisional Officer, Degloor and the tribe certificate of

father of the petitioner has been validated by the

Scrutiny Committee on 21.04.2001.

6681.17wp

4. We heard learned AGP for the respondent - State.

5. In view of Rule 5(2)(b)(ii) of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and

Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, if the father or

grandfather of the candidate has been issued with the

caste / tribe certificate by Sub Divisional Officer at one

place, then the candidate can obtain such certificate

from the competent authority at the place where he is

residing.

6. In the present case, father of the petitioner has

been issued tribe certificate by the authority at Degloor

and the said tribe certificate is also validated. The Sub

Divisional Officer, Parbhani could have issued tribe

certificate to the petitioner as she is resident of Purna,

District Parbhani.

7. In the light of the above, the impugned judgment

and order is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2

6681.17wp

committee shall decide the validation proceedings in

respect of tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously on its

own merits considering it to have been issued by the

competent authority, preferably within nine months.

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall not preclude the petitioner

from prosecuting further studies only on the ground that

validation proceeding is pending. Respondent Nos.5 and

6 can take appropriate action depending on the

validation proceedings. Rule accordingly made absolute.

No costs.

(V.L.ACHLIYA,J) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J)

kadam/

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter