Bombay High Court
Rohini Prabhakar Sable vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 3 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:6650-DB
*1* wp3109a4415o23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3109 OF 2023
Pavan s/o Subhash Sable,
Age : 30 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Bhagur, Taluka Shivgaon,
District Ahmednagar.
Presently residing at Dhule.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through its Secretary.
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik-2.
Through its Member Secretary.
3. The Instructor,
State Reserve Police Force,
Group No.7, Daund, Dist.Pune.
4. The Instructor,
State Disaster Response Force,
Dhule.
...RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4415 OF 2023
Rohini d/o Prabhakar Sable,
Age : 48 years, Occu. Service,
R/o Ganeshnagar, Shevgaon,
Taluka Shivgaon, District Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
*2* wp3109a4415o23
-VERSUS-
1. The State of Maharashtra.
Through its Secretary.
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik-2.
Through its Member Secretary.
3. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri Deepak Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri S.R. Wakale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State in Writ
Petition No.3109/2023 and for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/State in
Writ Petition No.4415/2023.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
&
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 03rd March, 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.) :
-
Heard the learned advocate Shri Deepak Choudhari
for the petitioners and advocate Shri S.R. Wakale, the learned
AGP for the respondents/ State.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
*3* wp3109a4415o23
finally by consent of parties.
3. By these two petitions, the petitioners have
challenged separate orders, both dated 14.02.2023, passed by
respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating their claims
for 'Koli Mahadev', Scheduled Tribe. Since both the petitioners
are cousins and are relying upon same genealogy and same set of
evidence, these petitions are being decided by this common
judgment.
4. Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has passed
the impugned orders by observing that the petitioners have failed
to establish their tribe claim on the strength of documentary
evidence as well as on account of failure to prove affinity with
'Koli Mahadev' tribe.
5. Assailing the impugned orders, the learned advocate
Shri Choudhari for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the
Scrutiny Committee has adopted an erroneous approach in
appreciating documentary evidence, particularly validity
certificates in favour of close relatives of the petitioners. By
inviting our attention to the genealogy, it is submitted that Amol,
son of Subhash Sable, who is real brother of Pavan (petitioner in
*4* wp3109a4415o23
Writ Petition No.3109/2023), has been granted the validity by
following due procedure. Similarly, Rushikesh Dnyaneshwar
Sable, cousin brother of the petitioners, has been granted validity
by this Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2024 in Writ Petition
No.1018/2021. It is submitted that in view of these validity
certificates of close blood relatives, the petitioners are also
entitled to validation of their claims.
6. Advocate Shri Wakale, the learned AGP for the
respondents/ State, opposed the petitions and justified the
impugned orders by pointing out that there are documents of pre-
independence era showing the caste as 'Hindu Koli' and in view
thereof, reliance cannot be placed on the validities. It is
submitted that the petitioners were bound to prove their claim
independently.
7. We have considered the rival submissions and
perused the papers.
8. It is undisputed that Amol Subhash Sable, who is the
real brother of the petitioner Pavan, has got a validity. So also,
Rushikesh Dnyaneshwar Sable, who is cousin of the petitioners,
is held entitled to have the conditional validity by judgment
*5* wp3109a4415o23
dated 26.08.2024 in Writ Petition No.1018/2021.
9. In view of the validity certificates in favour of the
petitioners' close blood relatives, their claims also need to be
validated in view of the settled position of law as laid down in
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs.
The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2023 SC 1657 and
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur, [2010(6) Mh.L.J.401 : AIR
2010(6) Bom.R.21].
10. Hence, the petitioners are also entitled to validation
of their claims, which have to be co-terminus with the validity of
Rushikesh Dnyaneshwar Sable, and subject to the consequences
spelt out in Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others, 2018 SCC Online Bom 10363.
Hence, we pass the following order:-
(a) The Writ Petitions are partly allowed.
(b) The impugned orders dated 14.02.2023 passed by
respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set aside.
(c) Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee is directed to
immediately issue validity certificates of 'Koli Mahadev',
*6* wp3109a4415o23
Scheduled Tribe, in favour of the petitioners.
(d) The validity certificates to be issued to the
petitioners, shall be subject to the final outcome of the matters of
validity holders, which the Scrutiny Committee has decided to
reopen.
(e) The petitioners shall not be entitled to claim
equities.
(f) No order as to costs.
11. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps ( PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
