Bombay High Court
Balaji Shivaji Salunke And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 23 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AUG:16030-DB
9 WP NO.1326.2025 JUDG.
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1326 OF 2025
1 Balaji s/o Shivaji Salunke,
Age : 53 years, Occu : Service,
R/o : Kanheri Road, More Nagar,
Latur, Tq. And Dist. Latur
2 Ganesh s/o Balaji Salunke
Age : 23 years, Occu : Student,
R/o : As above
.... Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
Through its Secretary
2 The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Kinwat,
Headquarter - Chh. Sambhajinagar,
Tq. And Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar
Through its Member Secretary
3 The Executive Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution,
Co. Ltd., Divisional Office,
Near Old Bus Stand,
Solapur Road, Tuljapur,
Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Dharashiv
.... Respondents
9 WP NO.1326.2025 JUDG.
-2-
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. S. C. Yeramwar
AGP for Respondents-State : Mr. R. K. Ingole
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. U. S. Malte
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
Dated : June 23, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of parties.
2. The Petitioners before us are father and son. Both are
aggrieved by the common order passed by the Competent Authority
dated 08.01.2025, thereby invalidating their claims of belonging to the
Thakur Scheduled Tribe category. This matter was extensively heard on
19.06.2025 and 20.06.2025.
3. The Family Tree of the Petitioners indicates that both the
Petitioners are from the branch of Sambhajirao. Bapurao Salunke is the
oldest ancestor. The people from this community use the surnames like
Salunke / Pawar / Thakur. Bapurao had one son, namely Dajiba. Dajiba
had four sons namely Baburao, Santaram, Rambhau and Sambhajirao
and a daughter Sundarabai. Baburao's grand-daughter Sangita D/o
Laxman and another grand-daughter Lata D/o Narhari, have been
granted Validity Certificates by the Committee.
4. Rambhau's son Prakash, who carries the surname Thakur,
was before this Court in Writ Petition 2016 of 2007 (Prakash s/o
Rambhau Thakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.). This Court
[Coram : B. R. Gavai (as his Lordship then was) and N. D. Deshpande,
JJ.] delivered a judgment on 10.09.2009 with the opening paragraph No.
2 as under :
"2. This is again a classic case wherein, the respondent
No.2 Committee has invalidated the claim of the petitioner as
belonging to "Thakur Scheduled Tribe" while it has
validated the claim of the petitioner's son and real brother. It
is further interesting to note that this has been done by
relying on the same material, which was relied upon by the
Committee while validating the claim of the petitioner's son
Arun and real brother Angadh."
5. After perusing the entire files and the record, this Court
concluded that the approach of the Committee is unsustainable. When
the brother of Prakash namely Angad S/o Rambhau was granted Validity
Certificate, Prakash cannot be deprived of his Certificate. His grand-son
Sanjay S/o Shivaji has been granted Validity Certificate by the
Committee. Petitioner No. 1 before us, namely Balaji, is the biological
brother of Sanjay. Petitioner No. 2 Ganesh, is the son of Balaji.
6. Sambhajirao had eight sons namely Shivaji, Kumar, Bharat,
Suresh, Kamlakar, Madhukar, Bhaskar and Ankush and one daughter
Jayashree. Krushna and Sandip are siblings, both sons of Bharat and
grand-sons of Sambhajirao and they have been granted Validity
Certificates. Gaurav S/o Madhukar and grand-son of Sambhajirao, has
also been granted Validity Certificate. Siddheshwar and Ajay are
siblings, sons of Bhaskar and grand-sons of Sambhajirao and have also
been granted Validity Certificates.
7. In the above backdrop, the Committee rejected the claims of
the present two Petitioners. Since we found that the conduct of the
Committee Members was unconscionable in the light of the judgment
delivered by this Court in Prakash Rambhau Thakur (supra) on
10.09.2009, we had no option, but to direct the learned AGP to keep the
Members of the Committee present before us.
8. The three Members of the Committee appeared before the
Court on 20.06.2025. Each one of them, namely Dinesh Bakaram Tidke,
Joint Commissioner, Vijaykumar Mahadeo Katake, Deputy Director and
Ganjendra Shankarrao Kendre, Senior Research Officer, have tendered
their affidavits dated 20.06.2025. These three affidavits in the aforesaid
serial order are taken on record and marked as 'X-1', 'X-2' and 'X-3' for
identification. Each one of them has expressed remorse and regret. A
statement is made that there was no intention to contradict the earlier
dictum of this Court in Prakash Rambhau Thakur (Supra) and
unconditional apologies are tendered and each one has volunteered to
deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh Only) from their Salary Bank
Accounts, in this Court, within a period of one week from today. The
said statements are recorded.
9. The learned AGP submits on instructions that since the
Committee has noticed certain discrepancies, the Committee intends to
reopen the cases of those who have been earlier granted Validity
Certificates.
10. Considering the above, this Petition is partly allowed,
keeping in view the law laid down in Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. State of
Maharashtra [(2018) SCC OnLine Bom 10363]. These two Petitioners
would be issued with the Validity Certificates within 30 days from
today.
11. In the event any of the Validity Holders on whose validities
these Petitioners have placed reliance, face reopening of their cases, all
contentions of the stake holders are kept open and in the event any of the
claims of such Validity Holders are negated after reopening and their
cases and the Certificates granted earlier, are cancelled, the same
consequences would be fall upon the present Petitioners. Needless to
state, all legal remedies are kept open.
12. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that he has
used his good offices and has convinced the Petitioners to donate some
amount for the cause of the Advocates' Association of Bombay High
Court, Bench at Aurangabad. When called upon, he submits that these
Petitioners be permitted to withdraw 50% of the total amount deposited
in this Court and the Registry may transfer the remaining 50% amount in
the account of the Advocates' Association of Bombay High Court,
Bench at Aurangabad.
13. As such, the Registry shall transfer 50% of the said amount
to the Advocates' Association expeditiously, after it is deposited in this
Court. The Petitioners are permitted to withdraw 50% amount with
proper identification of the learned Advocate and by tendering self-
attested copies of their Aadhar Cards. Rule is made partly absolute in the
above terms.
14. Before parting with this matter, the learned AGP has
tendered a Chart of pending cases before us. The same is taken on record
and marked as 'Y' for identification. The Chart indicates that there are
several districts which have been bundled up together and placed within
the jurisdiction of a Single Committee, like for e.g. the Kinwat
Committee sitting at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for Nanded, Hingoli,
and Latur. There is a separate Committee for Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
So also, there are few more such Committees who are vested with the
jurisdiction of a couple of Districts.
15. We would appreciate if the State of Maharashtra takes a
decision at the earliest, to constitute district-wise Committees in order to
reduce the burden on a particular Committee which takes up matters for
several districts. We are informed that the cases pending with the Kinwat
Committee for Nanded, Hingoli and Latur Districts, is a total of 5934
matters up to April 2025. Several such matters have been cast with a
timeline under the orders of the High Court. It is humanly impossible for
this Committee to decide thousands of students matters in time frames
like 2 months / 3 months / 4 months, etc. as directed by this Court.
16. As such, we direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this
Court to place this order before the Chief Secretary of the State of
Maharashtra. We request the Government of Maharashtra to initiate
urgent steps for the constitution of district-wise Committees in order to
reduce the burden on the existing Committees and to ensure that each
district would then have a lesser load for deciding the matters
expeditiously.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Omkar Joshi
