Bombay High Court
Kinjal Vilas Bastav And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary, ... on 26 February, 2025
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
2025:BHC-AS:9110-DB
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.40 OF 2025
1. Kinjal Vilas Bastav,
Age: 18 Years, Occu: Student,
2. Manav Mukesh Bastav,
Age : 17 years, Minor
Through father and natural
Guardian Shri Mukesh Bastav
3. Aayush Prashant Bastav
Aged: 25 years
All residing at B/8, Mulund Sagar
Prasad CHS Ltd., Gavanpada Village
Road, Mulund East, Mumbai: 400081 ....Petitioners
versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Tribal;
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee Konkan Division, Thane,
Kartikeya 1 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2025 22:18:03 :::
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
Through its Member Secretary,
Having its office at 6th floor, MTNL
Bldg., Charai, Thane (West)
District Thane
3. Commissioner and Competent
Authority, State Common Entrance
Cell, Maharashtra having its office
At New Excelsior Bldg. 8th floor,
A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai-1.
4. Saraswati Education Society's
Yadavrao Tasgaonkar Institute of
Pharmacy (Degree) having its office
At Chandhai, Bhivpuri Road Station
Tal. Karjat, District Raigad. ....Respondents
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent No.3 - CET Cell.
Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, AGP for the Respondent No.2.
Mr. Dinkar J. Pawara, Joint Commissioner & Vice Chairman,
CVC Thane.
Mr. Dipak T. Shigam, Law Officer, CVC Thane.
Mr. Vaibhav P. Rajam, Law Officer, CVC Thane.
Kartikeya 2 of 16
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2025 22:18:03 :::
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 13th JANUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th FEBRUARY, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) :-
1. Rule. By consent of the respective counsels representing
the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith. Petition is taken
up for final hearing.
2. Respondent No.2, by its Common Order dated
23.10.2024 has invalidated the claim of the Petitioners as
belonging to 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe Category
("Impugned Order").
3. Factual Matrix:
(a) This is a composite petition, at the instance of the
following Petitioners viz.:
(i) Kinjal Bastav- Daughter of Vilas Bastav;
(ii) Manav Bastav- Son of Mukesh Bastav; and
Kartikeya 3 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
(iii) Aayush Bastav- Son of Prashant Bastav.
Petitioner No.1 is the first cousin sister of Petitioner
Nos.2 and 3. Similarly, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the first
cousin brothers of Petitioner No.1.
(b) Tribe claim of Ms. Yaminee Pandurang Bastav, i.e.
paternal real Aunt of the Petitioners as belonging to
Mahadeo Koli was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.
1434 of 1994. By order dated 24.03.1994, this Court
declared Yaminee Pandurang Bastav as belonging to
Scheduled Tribe Mahadeo Koli.
(c) Tribe claim of Mr. Yatin Nilkanth Bastav, the
paternal cousin uncle of the Petitioners, as belonging to
Mahadev Koli was subject matter of Writ Petition No.8033
of 2004. By order dated 04.10.2013, this Court relying
on the Caste Validity Certificate granted to Yaminee
Pandurang Bastav, directed the Respondent No.2 to
consider the tribe claim of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav.
Respondent No.2 on consideration of the tribe claim of
Yatin Nilkanth Bastav issued Caste Validity Certificate as
Kartikeya 4 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
belonging to Koli Mahadev.
(d) Tribe claim of Pramod Govind Bastav, i.e, paternal
cousin grandfather of the Petitioners as belonging to
Mahadev Koli was subject matter of Writ Petition No.2925
of 2013. By order dated 04.10.2013, this Court directed
the Respondent No.2 to consider the tribe claim of
Pramod Govind Bastav. Respondent No.2 on consideration
of the tribe claim of Pramod Govind Bastav, issued Caste
Validity Certificate as belonging to Mahadev Koli.
(e) Special Leave Petition (Diary) No.21767 of 2017
filed against the order dated 04.10.2013 passed in Writ
Petition No.8033 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.2925 of
2013 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on
18.09.2017.
(f) Tribe claims of the father of Petitioner No.1 and
father of Petitioner No.2 upon being invalidated by the
Respondent No.2, was questioned before this Court in
Writ Petition No.3134 of 2009.
Kartikeya 5 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
This Court relying on the Caste Validity Certificate
issued to Yaminee Bastav, Yatin Bastav and Pramod
Bastav, the close blood relations from paternal side,
directed the Respondent No.2 to issue Caste Validity
Certificate to Vilas Pandurang Bastav and Mukesh
Pandurang Bastav as belonging to Koli Mahadev
Schedule Tribe. Respondent No.2 accordingly issued
Certificate of Validity to Vilas and Mukesh as belonging to
Koli Mahadev .
(g) Petitioners have been issued Scheduled Tribe
Certificate in Form C by the Sub Divisional Office, Eastern
Suburbs, Mumbai Suburban District.
(h) In the month of April 2024, Petitioners applied to
the Respondent No.2 in the prescribed manner for
verification of their Tribe Certificate as belonging to Koli
Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. Affidavit in Form "F"
containing the complete Genealogy Tree was appended to
the application.
(i) Application Form of Petitioner No.3 was accepted
Kartikeya 6 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to the direction issued
by this Court vide order dated 12.11.2024 passed in Writ
Petition No.9464 of 2024.
(j) Enquiry Report dated 12.11.2024 of the Vigilance
Cell was furnished to the Petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
Petitioners filed their reply to the Enquiry Report dated
12.11.2024.
(k) Petitioner No.1 had filed Writ Petition No.14956 of
2024 seeking a direction to the Respondent No.2 for
expeditious disposal of her application for grant of Caste
Validity Certificate. This Court by its order dated
23.10.2024 directed the Respondent No.2 to dispose of
the claim of the Petitioner on or before 31.12.2024.
In the meantime, the admission of the Petitioner
No.1 was protected, in view of her biological father being
granted Caste Validity Certificate by this Court.
(l) By the impugned order the Respondent No.2 has
invalidated the claim of the Petitioners.
Kartikeya 7 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
(m) Petitioners are before this Court questioning the
impugned order and seeking a declaration that the
Petitioners belong to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.
4. This Court vide order dated 03.01.2025, by relying on
the prima facie observation recorded by this Court in Writ
Petition No.14956 of 2024, fixed the matter for final disposal.
Submissions:
5. Mr. Mendadkar, the learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioners submits that the blood relations of the Petitioners
from paternal side having Caste Validity Certificate as
belonging to "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe, the Petitioners
were entitled for grant of scheduled Tribe Validity Certificate
as belonging to Koli Mahadev. He submits that the Respondent
No.2 has erroneously rejected the claim of the Petitioners. He
further contends that the Respondent No.2 has relied on the
invalidation of the Tribe Claim of one Nischal Chintaman
Bastav and Vishal Chintaman Bastav to deny the claim of the
Petitioners. Mr. Mendadkar submits that Nischal or Vishal
Chintaman Bastav are not the blood relatives of the Petitioners
Kartikeya 8 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
from the paternal side and therefore, rejection of their tribe
claims are irrelevant to the case of the Petitioners. Mr.
Mendadkar has relied on the Tribe Claim of Yaminee
Pandurang Bastav, Yatin Nilkanth Bastav, Pramod Govind
Bastav, Vilas Pandurang Bastav, Mukesh Pandurang Bastav, all
being blood relatives of the Petitioners from paternal side. Mr.
Medadkar has relied on the Genealogy Tree referred in the
Form "F" dated 02.04.2024 filed by Vilas Pandurang Bastav.
He, therefore, prays that the petition be allowed.
6. Ms. Pooja Joshi Deshpande, learned AGP for the
Respondent-State has opposed the petition. She submits that
the tribe claim of Nischal Chintaman Bastav a relative of the
Petitioners has been invalidated by the Respondent No.2 and
the said invalidation has been maintained by this Court as well
as the Supreme Court. She submits that Yatin Bastav as well as
Pramod Bastav had suppressed the invalidation of the claim
suffered by Nischal Chintaman Bastav and by such
suppression, have validated their claims. She submits that
Respondent No.2 has considered the said issue and rightly
rejected the Tribe Claim of the Petitioners. She defends the
Kartikeya 9 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
impugned order by relying upon the reasons set out by the
Respondent No.2 and it is her contention that the Petition
deserves to be dismissed.
She relies on decision dated 16.04.2022 of this Court in
Nischal Chintaman Bastav versus the State of Maharashtra1,
Order dated 05.09.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in SLP (Serial No.12560-12561/2002) and Judgment of this
Court in the case of Rashmi versus Deputy Commissioner and
Others.2
7. With the assistance of the parties, we have perused the
record. From the rival contentions of the parties the question
for determination is whether the Petitioners on the basis of
documentary evidence / material on record have been able to
establish that they belong to "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe?
8. Genealogy Tree relied by the Petitioners at Exhibit K,
(page No.108) is transcribed hereunder:
2 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3064
Kartikeya 10 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
Genealogy Tree
Gopal
________________________________________________________________________________
Pandurang Janardan Govind
1.Pitambar ........................................................ 1.Pritesh
2.Yashwant Pandurang Satyabhama Nilkanth 2.Vishwas
1.Prashant| 1.Yatin 3.Pramod
2.Vilas 2.Shailendra 4.Rajesri
3.Mukesh 3.Amit
4.Yamini
1.Kinjal (P-1) 1.Ayush(P-3)
1.Manav(P-2)
Analysis:-
9. Records bear out that, the biological father of the
Petitioner No.1, i.e., the uncle of Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and the
biological father of the Petitioner No.2 i.e., the uncle of
Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 have Caste Validity Certificates as
belonging to Koli-Mahadev Scheduled Tribe.
Kartikeya 11 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
Similarly, Petitioners real Aunt Yaminee Pandurang
Bastav is holder of Caste Validity Certificate as belonging to
Koli-Mahadev.
Yatin Bastav the cousin uncle of the Petitioners is a
holder of Caste Validity Certificate as belonging to Koli-
Mahadev.
Pramod Bastav cousin grandfather of the Petitioners is
also a holder of Caste Validity Certificate as belong to Koli-
Mahadev.
10. Respondent No.2 did not find Petitioners relationship
with Vilas Bastav, Mukesh Bastav, Yaminee Bastav, Yatin Bastav
and Pramod Bastav, disputable.
11. Section 8 of 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, casts the burden of proving that the person
belonging to a Caste, Tribe or Class is upon such Claimant who
claims to belong to a particular Caste or Tribe.
Kartikeya 12 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
12. Rule 2(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules,
2005 defines "Relative" to mean a blood relative from the
paternal side of the applicant.
13. Petitioners have relied on the Caste Validity Certificates
of their blood relatives from paternal side. Mr. Mendadkar
states that the Petitioners are on oath to state that the person
referred to in the genealogy tree who are holders of Caste
Validity Certificates, are their blood relative from paternal
side. Thus, the Petitioners have discharged the burden cast on
them.
Ms. Pooja J. Deshpande Learned AGP does not dispute
the relationship of the Petitioners with their relatives referred
to in para no. 9 herein above. However, it is her claim that the
validity obtained by the said relatives of the Petitioners was
obtained by suppressing the invalidation of the claim made by
Nischal Bastav. The learned AGP, however, was unable to show
from the record the relation of Nischal Bastav with the afore-
referred relatives of the Petitioners or for that matter with the
Kartikeya 13 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
Petitioners. No material to that effect was placed before us.
At any rate, the Caste Validity Certificates issued to the
aforesaid blood relatives of the Petitioners from paternal side,
are intact as on date. Respondent No.2 has not produced any
document indicating any of the said Caste Validity Certificates,
being invalidated.
14. When the Respondent No.2 did not find Petitioners
relation with the afore-referred Caste validity Certificate
holders disputable, the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva
D/O Vinay Nichale versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 and Others,3 ought to have been followed.
Respondent No.2. could not have ignored the Caste validity
Certificates granted to the blood relatives of the Petitioners
paternal side relatives.
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti versus State of
Maharashtra and Others,4 has considered the sanctity and
3 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326
Kartikeya 14 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
significance of the prescribed procedure under 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. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the procedure that has
to be followed by the Committee, the importance and
significance of the vigilance cell inquiry and establishing the
relationship by the claimant with those having a Caste or a
Tribe Validity Certificate. Case of Apoorva D/O Vinay Nichale
(supra) is referred to in paragraph No. 6 of the judgment in
the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti (supra).
16. In the light of the above, position of law emerging before
us as well as considering the above referred documents, we
are of the opinion that the reasons assigned by the Respondent
No.2 in the impugned order in invalidating the claim of the
Petitioners are erroneous and unsustainable.
Kartikeya 15 of 16
3-WP-40-2025(FC).odt
17. In view of the above, the impugned order of the
Respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
Respondent No.2 is directed to issue Koli-Mahadev Scheduled
Tribe Validity Certificate to the Petitioners within a period of
30 days from today.
18. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as
to cost.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE)
Kartikeya 16 of 16
