Bombay High Court
Amar Ravaso Koli And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Prin. ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:48004-DB
902-WP(ST)-27502-2023-(C).odt
Digitally signed
by SUNNY
SUNNY ANKUSHRAO
ANKUSHRAO THOTE
THOTE Date:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
2025.11.11
10:31:37 +0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 27502 OF 2023
1. Amar Ravaso Koli,
Age : 24 Yrs.
2. Gita Ravaso Koli,
Age : 58 Yrs.
3. Swati Rajkumar Koli
Age : 32 Yrs.
4. Amol Rajkumar Koli
Age : 40 Yrs.
5. Jyoti Sanjay Koli
Age : 37 Yrs.
6. Sharad Sanjay Koli
Age : 28 Yrs. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Scheduled Tribe Cate Certificate
Verification Committee, Pune Division,
Pune.
3. Sub Divisional Officer
Ichalkaranji, Sub Division, Ichalkaranji
Dist-Kolhapur. ...Respondents
SUNNY THOTE 1 of 6
::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 14/11/2025 21:46:48 :::
902-WP(ST)-27502-2023-(C).odt
Mr. Abhineet Pange a/w Mr. Sumit Agrawal, Mr. Shantanu Joshi i/by
Mr. Vikas Daund, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for the
Respondent/State.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 7th NOVEMBER, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally
by the consent of the parties.
2. This is yet one more case wherein these Petitioners,
who are inter se related to each other, have been refused the
Scheduled Tribe Certificates, though their fathers have the said
certificates. The Petitioners Swati and Amol are siblings. Their
father is Rajkumar Kallappa Koli. The Petitioners, Jyoti and Sharad,
are also siblings. Their father Sanjay Kallappa Koli has been granted
the Scheduled Tribe Certificate. The Petitioners, Geeta and Amar,
are also siblings. Their father Ravaso S/o Kallappa Koli has also
received a Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe Certificate.
SUNNY THOTE 2 of 6
902-WP(ST)-27502-2023-(C).odt
3. In several Orders and Judgments, this Court has
concluded that the strict test of scrutiny as is expected under the
provisions of 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 2000, Act (for short
'2000, Act'), would not be applicable to Applicants who seek Caste
or Tribe Certificates based on their parents or closest paternal
relatives having been issued with such certificates. We have set
aside several orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer denying
the such certificates. We have also imposed costs on the members of
the Competent Caste Verification Committee under the 2000, Act,
for failing to apply their mind to such facts and mechanically
refusing to grant certificates.
4. This Petition before us is filed by the above mentioned
six Petitioners. Their fathers have received the Koli Mahadev
Scheduled Tribe Certificates. None of these three biological brothers
have applied for validity certificates. This Court has concluded that
grant of a certificate does not amount to approving the claim of the
claimants under the provisions of the 2000, Act to the extent of
SUNNY THOTE 3 of 6
902-WP(ST)-27502-2023-(C).odt
seeking a validity certificate. We have consistently held that if such
Petitioners, who receive Caste or Tribe Certificates under the orders
of this Court, cannot rely on the High Court's order, while seeking
validity certificates since such orders are limited only to the extent
of considering the fact that the parents or closest paternal relatives
have Caste/Tribe Certificates. Our order of grant of certificate would
not tantamount to accepting the claim of the Petitioners that they
belong to the particular Caste or Tribe.
5. The learned A.G.P. has pleaded before us that this is the
first occasion of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji having
passed an order refusing to grant Tribe Certificates to these
Petitioners. She also pleads on instructions that the Committee,
Respondent No.2, has realized its mistake and she is assured that
this Committee will never repeat such a mistake. The orders passed
by this Court date back to the last around two years and the
impugned orders before the Court were passed prior thereto.
6. In view of the above, since we find that Respondent
No.3 has failed to apply his mind while considering the prayer for
grant of Tribe Certificates and since the impugned orders passed by
SUNNY THOTE 4 of 6
902-WP(ST)-27502-2023-(C).odt
Respondent No.2, Committee is unsustainable, this Writ Petition is
allowed. Both the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The
proposals of the Petitioners is relegated to the Office of Respondent
No.3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji. The said Authority
would take into account that the biological fathers of these six
Petitioners have been granted Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe
Certificates. He would issue such certificates to these Petitioners, on
or before 25th November, 2025. The Petitioners would reach the
Office of Respondent No.3 on 25th November, 2025 at 12:00 noon
and collect their certificates. Necessary formalities which may be
required to be completed, would be done with the co-operation of
the Petitioners.
7. We make it clear that the grant of Scheduled Tribe
Certificates to these Petitioners does not mean that the High Court
has accepted their claim of belonging to the Koli Mahadev
Scheduled Tribe Category. If any of these Petitioners or their fathers
move the Competent Committee for seeking validity certificates, the
concerned Committee would be at liberty to carry out an in-depth
scrutiny of the applications and follow the due procedure laid down
in law and in accordance with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme
SUNNY THOTE 5 of 6
902-WP(ST)-27502-2023-(C).odt
Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2023 SC 1657.
8. We caution Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that since this is
the first instance brought to our notice, we are not imposing costs.
9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
SUNNY THOTE 6 of 6
