Bombay High Court
Aarti Sanjiv Saindane vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 2 April, 2025
Author: M.S. Karnik
Bench: M.S. Karnik
2025:BHC-AS:15148-DB
Digitally signed
by ARUNA
ARUNA SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date:
WP2670.2020.odt
2025.04.02
18:05:40 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2670 OF 2020
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3353 OF 2022
Aarti Sanjiv Saindane.
Aged: 22 years, residing at
B-99/2, First Floor, Govt. Colony,
Bandra(East), Mumbai 400 051. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar
through its Member Secretary,
having its office at Near RTO Office,
Sakri Road, Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar.
3. Maharashtra University of Health
Science, Nashik through its
Controller of Examinations having its
Office at Mhasrud, Tal. And Dist.
Nashik having its Administrative office
at Govt. Dental College, Building,
3rd floor, St. George's Hospital
Compound, Near CSMT,
Fort, Mumbai -1.
4. Principal, Smt. Kamaladevi G. Mittal,
Punarvasu Ayurved Mahavidyalaya,
Netaji Subhash Road, Mumbai 400 002. ... Respondents.
****
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w. Mr. Siddhant Sawai, for the Petitioner.
Talwalkar 1
::: Uploaded on - 02/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 02/04/2025 22:32:31 :::
WP2670.2020.odt
Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State.
Mr. Rajesh Kanojia, for Respondent No. 3.
****
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 2nd APRIL, 2025
JUDGMENT :
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J)
1. Heard Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
Mr. V. M. Mali, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State and Mr.
Rajesh Kanojia, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and by consent of the
Advocates representing the respective parties, Petition is taken up for
hearing.
3. The decision dated 05.12.2018 of the Respondent No.2
Committee, invalidating the claim of the Petitioner as belonging to
"Tokare Koli" Scheduled Tribe, is assailed in this petition. (Impugned
order).
4. Petitioner was granted Caste Certificate as belonging to "Tokare
Koli" Scheduled Tribe by the Competent Authority on 17.09.2010. On
the basis of the said Caste Certificate, the Petitioner was granted
admission by the Respondent No. 3 University in BAMS Degree Course
in the Academic year 2013-14. Petitioner completed her BAMS Degree
WP2670.2020.odt
Course in the month of August, 2018. Petitioner moved the Respondent
No. 2 Committee for verification of her Caste Certificate. Petitioner
approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7690 of 2014 seeking a
direction to the Respondent No. 2 Committee for expeditious disposal of
her claim. By the impugned order, the Respondent No. 2 has invalidated
the caste claim of the Petitioner. Petitioner is thus before this Court.
5. Respondent No. 3 University has filed affidavit in reply dated
25.03.2021 inter alia contending that Respondent No.3, on the basis of
the order dated 21.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 7690 of 2014 had
provisionally accepted the registration and eligibility proposal of the
Petitioner. It is further contended that this Court by order dated
16.01.2015 while allowing the said Petition had directed Respondent No.
2 Committee to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner and till then, the
Petitioner was permitted to prosecute her studies. It is further contended
that till date, Respondent No. 3 has not received any communication
from Respondent No. 2 Committee validating the claim of the Petitioner.
6. Mr. Mendadkar, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that
rejection of the caste validity claim of the Petitioner, is untenable in law,
in as much as, Respondent No. 2 Committee has ignored the documents
and the material produced on record by the Petitioner, which established
the Petitioner's claim of belonging to "Tokare Koli" Scheduled Tribe.
WP2670.2020.odt
He further submits that tribe claim of the Petitioner's father was
validated by Respondent No. 2 Committee after following due process of
law. Respondent No. 2 Committee by erroneously relying on the entry in
respect of Suryawanshi Koli, of uncle of the Petitioner of the year 1962
has rejected the claim. He further submits that the tribe claim of the
Petitioner's father being validated, the Petitioner was entitled to validity
of his caste claim. He therefore, prays that the Petition be allowed.
7. Per contra, Mr. V.M. Mali, learned AGP appearing for the
State/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has opposed the Petition. He relies on the
reasons recorded in the impugned order, to support the same and prays
that the Petition be dismissed.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti versus State of Maharashtra and
Others1 has considered the sanctity and significance of the prescribed
procedure in The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 where, the importance and
significance of vigilance cell inquiry and establishing the relationship by
1 AIR 2023 SC 1657
WP2670.2020.odt
the claimant with those having a caste or a tribe validity certificate is
specifically focused upon.
9. When Respondent No. 2 Committee did not find the relationship
of the Petitioner with Shri Sanjiv Saindane, her father, to be disputable,
the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale versus
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Others 2
should have been followed by the Committee and it could not have
ignored the validity certificate granted to the Petitioner's father.
10. It is not the case of the Respondent No. 2 that the Certificate of
validity bearing No. JAG/SERV/10/MPSC/160-93-94/sps/693 dated
20.01.2007 issued to Sanjiv Puna Saindane, as belonging to Tokare Koli
has been invalidated. No material in that regard is placed before us.
11. The impugned order is based on materials not relevant to decide
the claim. The most relevant material, her father's caste validity
certificate which holds good is ignored on completely wrong notions
contrary to the settled law.
12. In light of the above position of law emerging before us, the
reasons assigned in the impugned decision by the Respondent No.2
invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner are erroneous and as
such liable to be interfered with.
2 2010(6) Mh.L.J.401
WP2670.2020.odt
13. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra
Adhiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti versus State of Maharashtra
and Others (Supra); of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale versus
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur (Supra) and the caste
validity certificate issued to Sanjiv P. Saindane, a close blood relative,
the Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.12.2018 passed by
the Respondent No.2 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is
directed to issue "Tokare Koli" Scheduled Tribe Certificate to the
Petitioner within a period of six weeks from today.
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms, with no orders as to
costs.
15. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the
Interim Application. The same is disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
