Bombay High Court
Dipti Digambar Gavankar vs The State Of Maha. Thr. Sec. Dept. Of ... on 10 November, 2025
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2025:BHC-AS:48691-DB
Digitally signed
ARUNA by ARUNA
SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date: 2025.11.13
19:39:04 +0530 12.WP3310.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3310 OF 2024
Dipti d/o. Digambar Gavankar.
Age: 34 years, Occ. Private Service,
R/o Riddhi Siddhi Residency,
Flat No. 1002, Plot No. 27, Sector 9,
ULWE, Navi Mumbai. ... Petitioner.
V/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Konkan Division, Thane,
Dist. Thane, Tq. & Dist. Thane.
Through its Member Secretary. ... Respondents.
---
Mr. Sahil Choudhari h/f. Mr. Sushant Yermvar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for Respondent/State.
---
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
DATE : 10th 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. We have a peculiar case before us. As we narrate the factual
12.WP3310.2024.odt
matrix, the peculiarity of the case would come to light. We are
summarizing the factual matrix as under :
(a) The Petitioner Dipti, daughter of Digambar Gavankar, is
around 35 years of age and is an employee in a private sector.
(b) By an order dated 7/12/2009, 16 years ago, her claim of
belonging to the 'Thakar - Scheduled Tribe' category, which is at Serial
No. 44 in the list of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra, was
scrutinized by the Committee and the request for a validity certificate
was rejected.
(c) The Petitioner's biological uncle (father's biological
brother) Vilas, has received the validity certificate from the Committee.
His biological brother Sandip has also received a validity certificate from
the Committee.
(d) Keshav, son of Shankar and grand son of the oldest
recorded ancestor Sitaram Thakar, had 4 sons namely, Digambar, Vilas,
Sandip and Nitin.
(d) Digambar is the father of Dipti and Aarti, who are siblings.
Vilas is the father of Chaitali and Chetan (siblings). Sandip is the father
12.WP3310.2024.odt
of Shankar and Shrushti (siblings).
(e) Nitin is father of Yash. Biological brothers Vilas and
Sandip, having received the validity certificates, led the Kolhapur Circuit
Bench of the Bombay High Court, in granting a validity certificate to
Shankar, son of Sandip, in Writ Petition No. 8943 of 2023, vide order
dated 03/9/2025.
(f) The above narrated paternal relatives are from the branch of
Shankar, son of Sitaram. Sitaram is said to have 3 sons namely, Krushna,
Shankar and Ramchandra. From the branch of Krushna, Suraj, son of
Sunil, grand son of Gopal, and great grand son of Krushna, has been
granted the validity certificate by the Committee.
3. The above narration of the paternal relatives is on the basis
of the genealogy tendered to the Committee by Sandip Keshav
Gavankar. A typed copy of the same is tendered to the Court which taken
on record and marked as 'X' for identification. On the basis of the said
genealogy, Sandip was granted a validity certificate by the Committee.
His biological brother Vilas was also granted the validity certificate.
Since the claim of Shankar, son of Sandip was invalidated by the
Committee, he approached the Bombay High, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur
12.WP3310.2024.odt
and received the validity certificate by order dated 03/9/2025 (supra).
4. In such circumstances, the law laid down by this Court in
Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1 Nagpur, (2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401) would be squarely
applicable.
5. The learned AGP points out that two of the paternal cousins
of the present Petitioner namely, Sandip Keshav Gavankar and Vilas
Keshav Gavankar, have been issued with 'show cause' notices on
21/10/2022, for reopening their cases, after having been granted validity
certificates, unconditionally. This aspect was not brought to the notice
of the Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, which granted a validity certificate to
Shankar, son of Sandip vide order dated 03/9/2025.
6. Considering the above position, we find that the Petitioner's
case need not be kept pending and she can be granted a validity
certificate, conditionally, in the light of the Judicial pronouncement of
this Court in Shweta Balaji Isankar vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others, Writ Petition No.5611/2018, decided on 27.07.2018 by this Court
(2018 SCC Online Bom 10363).
12.WP3310.2024.odt
7. As such, this Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order
dated 07.12.2009 is quashed and set aside. The Competent Committee
shall grant a validity certificate to the Petitioner within a period of 30
days from today. We record that we are conditionally granting the
validity certificate to the Petitioner. In the event, any of her paternal
relatives suffer reopening of their cases leading to cancellation of the
validity certificate already granted, the same consequences would visit
the present Petitioner.
8. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
(ASHWIN D.BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
