Bombay High Court
Akshada Pandharinath Lawande vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 11 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:8203-DB
wp8268 OF 2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8268 OF 2023
Rajendra S/o Damodhar Lawande.
Age: 53 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Infront of Rahuri College,
Rahuri (Bk.), Taluka Rahuri,
District Ahmednagar ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Scheduled Tribes Certificate,
Scrutiny Committee
Nashik Division, Nashik-2,
Through its Member Secretary,
3. The Superintendent of Police,
Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.
....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. E. S. Murge, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
....
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9100 OF 2023
Akshada D/o Pandharinath Lawande,
Age: 36 years, Occu. Service,
R/o. Athavan Niwad, Wamanbhau
Nagar, Pathardi, Taluka Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar ....PETITIONER
1 of 6
(( 2 )) wp8268 OF 2023
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Scheduled Tribes Certificate,
Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik-2,
Through its Member Secretary,
3. Shri Bhagwan Pratishan
"Nagin Niwas", Nathnagar,
Pathardi, Taluka Pathardi,
District Ahmednagar ....RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. E. S. Murge, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. M. K. Goyanka, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 11.03.2025
JUDGMENT (Per:- Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of
both sides, heard finally at the admission stage.
2. In both petitions, the petitioners have invoked the
inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India and challenged the order dated 23.06.2023
passed by Respondent No. 2, the Scrutiny Committee, thereby
invalidated their tribe claim of 'Koli Mahadev.'
2 of 6
(( 3 )) wp8268 OF 2023
3. The facts leading to both petitions are that the petitioners
are cousins. According to the genealogical tree, Balabhau Lawande
had two sons namely Maruti and Bapu. Shankar and Pandurang are
sons of Maruti. Narayan and Vithoba are real brothers and sons of
Bapu Lawande. Kondiba is son of Narayan. Shri Damodhar and
Eknath are grandsons of Narayan. Tukaram and Somnath are great
grandsons of Vithoba. Mahesh Bhaskar Lawande is great grandson of
Shri Pandurang Maruti Lawande, Shri Kiran Hansraj Lawande and
Mahesh Bhaskarrao Lawande are great grandsons of Shri Pandurang
Lawande. Whereas Ms. Shruti Satish Lawande great granddaughter of
Shankar Maruti Lawande. Shri Somnath Machhindra Lawande is
great grandson of Vithoba Bapu Lawande. In school leaving certificate
of Maruti Bhaurao Lawande date of birth is shown as 25.01.1947 and
his caste is shown as 'Hindu Mahadev Koli'.
4. It is not in dispute that on 23.10.2024, this Court
(Mangesh S. Patil & Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.) passed an order in Writ
Petition No. 11754 of 2024, in the matter of Ms. Shruti d/o Satish
Lawande, and directed Respondent No. 2, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, to issue tribe validity certificate recognizing her as
3 of 6
(( 4 )) wp8268 OF 2023
belonging to the 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners in
both these petitions are distant cousins of Shruti, daughter of Satish
Lawande, whose caste has been validated as 'Koli Mahadev,'
Scheduled Tribe.
5. Needless to say, the distant cousins of the petitioners i.e.,
Mahesh Bhaskarrao Lawande, Kiran Hansraj Lawande and Somnath
Machhindra Lawande have been granted caste validity certificates by
following due process of law. Even the old school record entry of
Maruti Bhaurao Lawande pertaining to the year 1957 was verified,
leading to issuance of caste validity certificate in favour of Mahesh
Lawande. Therefore, taking into consideration the law laid down in
the cases of-(i) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; AIR 2023 Supreme Court
1657;(ii) Apoorva Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, 2011(2) Bom. C.R.824 and;(iii) Shweta Balaji
Isankar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (writ petition No.6320
of 2017), when the caste validity certificate granted earlier certifying
that a blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same caste as
that is being claimed by the applicant, the Scrutiny Committee may
grant such certificate without calling for vigilance cell report.
4 of 6
(( 5 )) wp8268 OF 2023
However, if the committee finds that the earlier caste certificate is
tainted by fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the committee may
refuse to follow and may refuse to grant certificate to the applicant
before it.
6. In the case in hand, Shri Somnath Machhindra Lawande
and Shruti, daughter of Satish Lawande, have already been granted a
'Koli Mahadev' tribe validity certificate by this Court. Considering the
ratio laid down in the above cited cases as well as the entries made in
pre-independence documents i.e., school admission and extract
registers pertaining to Janardhan Damodhar Lawande and Ashok
Laxman Lawande, wherein their caste is mentioned as 'Koli Mahadev,'
which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe, it is clear that there was
absolutely no necessity for Respondent No. 2 to invalidate caste claim
of the petitioners. Consequently, the impugned orders of Respondent
No. 2, the Scrutiny Committee, are illegal and illogical and deserve to
be quashed and set aside.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to allow
the present petitions and proceed to pass the following order:
5 of 6
(( 6 )) wp8268 OF 2023
:: ORDER ::
(i) The writ petition Nos. 8268 of 2023 and 9100 of 2023 are
hereby partly allowed.
(ii) It is hereby declared that the petitioners belong to 'Koli
Mahadev' scheduled tribe.
(iii) The impugned orders passed by respondent No.2,
scheduled tribes certificate scrutiny committee, Nashik
Division are hereby quashed and set aside.
(iv) Respondent No.2, scheduled tribes certificate scrutiny
committee, Nashik is hereby directed to issue validity
certificate in favour of the petitioners within a period of
six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order.
(v) The said validity shall be subject to the finality of the
matters which the committee has decided to re-open in
respect of validity holders.
(vi) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
[Y. G. KHOBRAGADE J. ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL, J. ]
HRJadhav
6 of 6
