Bombay High Court
Shah Mohammed Tauqeer Tanveer Ahmed vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 September, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
2025:BHC-AUG:23511-DB
wpwp9406&9488-
25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9460 OF 2025
Shah Mohammed Tauqeer Tanveer Ahmed ... Petitioner
Age : 19 years, Occu: Student
R/o Plot No.4/B, Old Master Colony,
Mehroon, Jalgaon
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
2. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... Respondents
Committee, Jalgaon
PWD Quarters, Building-
Adarshanagar, Mahabal Road, Jalgaon
Through its Chairman
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9488 OF 2025
Shah Zarin Naaz Tanveer ... Petitioner
Age : 17 years, Occu: Student
Through Guardian- Tanveer Ahmed Khaleel
Shah, Age 44 years, Occu: Labur
R/o Plot No.4/B, Old Master Colony,
Mehroon, Jalgaon
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Justice and Special Assistance
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32
Page 1 of 8
wpwp9406&9488-
25
2. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... Respondents
Committee, Jalgaon
PWD Quarters, Building-
Adarshanagar,Mahabal Road, Jalgaon
Through its Chairman
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar & Mr. Vijay G. Gangalwad, Advocates for the
petitioners,
Mr. Sachin V. Kuptekar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
Ms. Neha B. Kamble, AGP for the Respondents State
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 2nd September, 2025
ORDER (Per: Y. G. Khobragade, J.)
1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioners, who are real brother and sister, take exception
to the orders dated 18.06.2025 passed by Respondent No.2 Scrutiny
Committee, thereby invalidating their Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A)
Certificates.
2. The petitioners are the students and they are intending to
secure admission to the professional courses from the seat reserved for
the Vimukta Jati -A Category. Their claim has been rejected by the
Committee by orders dated 18.06.2025. Therefore, considering the
urgency shown, the petitions are taken up together for disposal at the
stage of admission.
wpwp9406&9488-
3. The petitioners claim that they belong to Chhapparband-
Vimukta Jati (A). Their individual proposals were forwarded to
Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for validation of caste certificates.
The petitioners have submitted various documents, including validity
certificates of blood relatives, school entries etc. in support of their
claims. However, by orders dated 18.06.2025, the claims of the
petitioners of belonging to Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A) are rejected
by the Committee.
4. Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both
the sides, we have gone through the record.
5. As per the genealogical tree, Rahiman Shah Saheb Shah,
forefather of the petitioners, had two sons namely Ismail Shah Fakir
and Vajir Rahiman Shah Fakir. Khalil Ahmad Ismail Shah is the son
of Ismail Shah Fakir. Tanveer Ahmed Khalil Shah (Father of the
petitioners), Mubin Khalal Ahmad Shah (validity holder), Matin
Ahmad Khalil Shah (validity holders and real uncles of the
petitioners), are the sons of Khalil Ahmad Ismail Shah. In another
branch of genealogy, Anis Shah Vajir Shah is the son of Vajir
Rahiman Shah Fakir. Fatemohamad Anas Shah is the son of Anis
Shah Vajir Shah. Zubiyabi Fateh Mohammed and Shah Arbaz Fateh
wpwp9406&9488-
Mohammad ( validity holders and cousins of the petitioner) are the
children of Fate Mohammad Anas Shah.
6. On face of record, it appears that on 17.09.2013, the
Scrutiny Committee had granted validity certificate of belonging to
Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A) in favour of Mubin Ahamad Khalil
Shah, real uncle of the petitioners. On 24.09.2007, the Scrutiny
Committee had granted validity certificate of belonging to
Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A) in favour of Matin Ahamad Khalil
Shah, real uncle of the petitioners. Further, on 15.11.2018 and
21.10.2020, Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee had granted
validity certificates of belonging to Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A)
in favour of Shah Arbaz Fateh Mohammad and Zubiyabi Fateh
Mohammed, cousin brother and sister of the petitioners.
7. In support of the claim of the petitioners of belonging to
Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A), the learned counsel for the
petitioners relied on the judgment and order of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 9037 of 2024 (Iram Fatema Seed Ahmad Vs. State) and
connected matters, wherein, this Court (Coram: Mangesh S. Patil
& Shailesh P. Brahme, JJ.) has observed as follows:
wpwp9406&9488-
"The committee in the impugned orders itself has
referred to the validities of the blood relatives in each
of these matters. The only ground on which the
committee has refused to extend its benefit is that those
were issued pursuant to the circulars issued by the state
government which were subsequently quashed and set
aside by the orders of this Court. Conspicuously, none
of these impugned orders expressly demonstrates about
the committee having even gone through the original
orders passed by the then committees in the matters of
all these validity holders. It is evident that even without
actually examining the reasons assigned by the then
committees, the impugned orders were passed on the
premise that all the validities were granted only on the
ground of those circulars of 2006 and 2011 and there
was no other document or evidence before the then
committees."
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the
case of Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar Vs. District Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Gadchiroli), reported in 2021 (5) Mh. L. J.
345, wherein, in this Court has observed as under:
"We may note that neither in the show cause notice nor
in the impugned order cancelling the Caste Validity
Certificate issued to the petitioner is there any reference
made to "fraud" being practiced by the petitioner while
obtaining the Caste Validity Certificate. It is however
sought to be urged by the Scrutiny Committee that it
wpwp9406&9488-
exercised such power on the premise that the petitioner
while seeking verification of his caste-claim had not
referred to the old revenue records of 1920-24 and hence
the same amounted to playing fraud. It may be stated
that it was the Scrutiny Committee which was satisfied
with the documents relied upon by the petitioner when
he had sought verification of his caste-claim. The
Scrutiny Committee did not deem it fit to obtain a report
of the Vigilance Cell and instead proceeded to issue a
Caste Validity Certificate to the petitioner. Such power of
dispensing with an inquiry by the Vigilance Cell is vested
with the Scrutiny Committee by virtue of Rule 17(6) of
the Rules of 2012. The premise on which the Caste
Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner has been
cancelled is that the petitioner failed to bring before the
Scrutiny Committee the old revenue records of 1920-24.
In our view such alleged act of the petitioner failing to
bring before the Scrutiny Committee the old revenue
records can hardly amount to playing fraud while
seeking the Caste Validity Certificate. In this regard
useful reference may be made to the observations in Shri
Krishnan vs. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra, AIR
1976 SC 376 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court
observed that it is well settled that where a person on
whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the
truth by due diligence, fraud is not proved. It would
neither be a case of suggestio falsi or suppressio veri. In
other words, it was open for the Scrutiny Committee
while verifying the Caste Certificate of the petitioner to
have conducted an inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. The
Scrutiny Committee however did not deem it necessary
to have such inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell. The
Scrutiny Committee was thus in a position to discover
the old revenue records of 1920-24 by exercise of due
diligence which could have been done by holding an
inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. It however did not choose
to do so and thus it would not be legally permissible now
for the Scrutiny Committee to urge that by not referring
to old revenue records of 1920-24 the petitioner was
guilty of practicing fraud. As stated above though the
aspect of fraud was neither mentioned by the Scrutiny
wpwp9406&9488-
Committee in its show cause notice nor referred to in the
impugned order we have dealt with said aspect as the
impugned order was sought to be supported on that
count before this Court."
9. Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order and
invalidated the caste claim of the petitioners on the ground that
paternal blood relatives of the petitioners obtained validity
certificates on the basis of false document and concealment of
original record. It appears that the Committee has not taken any action
for cancellation of validity certificates issued in favour of the blood
relatives of the petitioners. As on today, the validity certificates of
Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A) issued in favour of blood relatives of
the petitioners, including their father, real uncles, cousins are still in
operation. Admittedly, the validity holders are the blood relatives of
the petitioner and the committee has not denied the same.
10. In cases of Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; AIR 2023 S.C. 1657, Shweta Balaji
Isankar V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2018 SCC Online Bom.
10341, Apoorva Vinay Nichale-Vs- Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No. 1 and Ors., [2010 (6) Mh. L. J. 401, it has been
concluded that when the biological father, biological siblings, biological
uncle etc., are granted validity certificates, a candidate so related to
wpwp9406&9488-
them, cannot be deprived of a validity certificate. Therefore,
considering parity with the blood relatives, the petitioners are entitled
to have validity certificate of belonging to Chhapparband- Vimukta
Jati (A).
11. In view of above discussion, the present Petitions deserve
to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.06.2025 passed by
Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee need to be quashed and set
aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned orders dated 18.06.2025, passed by Respondent
No.2 Scrutiny Committee are hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee shall immediately issue
validity certificates of Chhapparband- Vimukta Jati (A) in favour of
the Petitioners.
( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )
JPChavan
