Bombay High Court
Shubham Santosh Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary ... on 29 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:41322-DB 904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11224 OF 2023
Shubham Sanotsh Chavan
Age - Adult, Occupation : Student,
Residing at Shindewadi, Post - Pargoan, ...Petitioners
Tal - Daund, District - Pune.
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra ...Respondents
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2] The Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Kapil Towers, (C-Wings),
5th Floor, Near R.T.O. Office, Pune-01.
Mrs. Bhagyashri R. Mangale, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP, for State-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Digitally
signed by
CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &
RAJESHRI
RAJESHRI PRAKASH
PRAKASH AHER
AHER Date:
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
2025.09.29
20:41:30
+0530
RESERVED ON : 18TH SEPTEMBER 2025.
DELIVERED ON: 29TH SEPTEMBER 2025.
JUDGMENT :
[PER : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]
1. The correctness of order of caste certificate scrutiny
committee, Pune invalidating the Tribe claim of the Petitioner is
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
questioned in this Writ Petition. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Pune, vide order dated 20th April 2022, has invalidated
the Tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to "Thakar",
Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, who belongs to "Thakar"
Scheduled Tribe (notified at Serial no. 44 in the Scheduled Tribe
Order), was issued a caste certificate by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Daund-Purandar, on 25th April 2017. While pursuing his secondary
and higher secondary education, his tribe claim was referred to
Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee on 30th September 2018,
along with the necessary documents.
2. The petitioner produced several documents in support of his
claim, including the caste validity certificate issued in favour of his
cousin uncle, Vishwas Hiraman Chavan, dated 29 th September
1992. The case was referred to the Vigilance Cell for the domestic
inquiry. After receiving the Vigilance Cell report on 27 th December
2018, a re-inquiry was conducted, to scrutinize and verify the
petitioner's caste claim. Upon consideration of the enquiry report,
Respondent No.2-Committee, after hearing the matter on 16 th
December 2021, passed the impugned order invalidating the tribe
claim of the petitioner on 24th April 2022.
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
3. Mrs. Bhagyashri Mangle, the learned advocate for the
petitioner submits that the invalidation order passed by the
Committee is unsustainable, particularly in view of the fact that the
real brother of the petitioner, Omkar Santosh Chavan, has been
granted validity by this Court vide order dated 25th January 2021
in Writ Petition No.23349 of 2019 (Coram: S.C. Gupte and
Surendra Tawade, JJ.). This Court, in the above said order, after
considering several entries in the birth extracts, the school records
and the findings recorded by the Committee, regarding cultural
affinity test, and the validity certificate issued in favour of the
petitioner's uncle, namely, Vishwas Chavan has made categorical
observation that at least three pre-constitutional documents,
including those relating to the petitioner's grandfather, Vithal
Pitambar Chavan, described him as. "Hindu Thakar".
4. The majority of the entries relied upon by the petitioner also
described his immediate paternal relatives as "Thakar" or "Hindu
Thakar". Merely because some entries in respect of the great-
grandfather or other relations are recorded as "Marathi" or
"Hindu," the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously rejected the
Tribe claim. Relying on the view already taken by this Court to
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
hold that "Marathi" is not a caste or tribe but a linguistic identity,
and "Hindu" cannot be described as a caste or tribe but only a
religious identity, it is held that Scrutiny Committee has committed
a manifest error in relying on such entries to discard the
petitioner's claim.
5. This Court has also given due consideration to the validity
certificate issued in favour of the cousin uncle, whose relationship
is duly established from the genealogy placed on record. The
record of uncle Vishwas Hiram Chavan was scrutinized, and
documents dating back as far as 1920 were found, reflecting
entries of paternal relatives, belonging to Scheduled Tribe
"Thakar". Since the uncle was granted validity by the Scrutiny
Committee relying on pre-constitutional documents, and the real
brother of the petitioner has also been granted validity, the
petitioner's claim stands on equal footing.
6. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner therefore submits
that, considering the fact that the brother of the Petitioner has
been granted validity by the orders of this Court, there is no reason
for treating the Petitioner differently. It is, therefore, prayed that
the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
Committee, invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner, deserves
to be quashed and set aside by issuing directions to the Committee
to issue validity certificate in favour of the Petitioner.
7. The learned AGP has vehemently opposed the Writ Petition.
She has produced the original record for the perusal of this Court.
According to the learned AGP, the vigilance report conducted in
respect of the Petitioner discloses that the school record of the
close blood relatives of the Petitioner mentions caste as, "Hindu
Thakar" and "Hindu Maratha." The birth extracts of cousin great
grandfather and other relations of the petitioner, ranging from the
year 1921 to 1958 reflects their caste as, "Mara Thakar," "Marathi
Thakar," "Thakar," and "Hindu." It is therefore submitted that,
considering the consistent entries of "Hindu Thakar" in the school
extracts and the caste reflected in the birth extracts, the Petitioner
has failed to unequivocally prove his tribe claim. She further relies
on two genealogies, one showing Vithoba as the father of Dashrath
and Piloba, and the other showing Ramji as their father. Relying on
these, it is submitted that the genealogy of the Petitioner is
inconsistent and thus unreliable.
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
8. The learned AGP has also drawn the attention of this Court
to the show-cause notice issued to the cousin uncle of the
Petitioner, i.e., Vishwas Hiraman Chavan, by the Committee on 24 th
April, 2022, to contend that while passing the earlier order, this
Hon'ble Court had placed reliance on the caste validity certificate
issued in favour of Vishwas Hiraman Chavan. However, since the
Committee has now decided to issue a show-cause notice to him
alleging that the validity was obtained by misrepresentation, and
his case is to be reconsidered, the Petitioner cannot claim parity
with Omkar Santosh Chavan. It is therefore urged that this Court
should take a different view and dismiss the Writ Petition.
9. All the grounds on which the tribe claim of the petitioner's
brother had been rejected by the Committee, and later set aside by
this Court, are the very same grounds relied upon by the Scrutiny
Committee to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. This
Court has already elaborately dealt with each of these grounds in
its earlier order. Hence, the same findings apply mutatis mutandis
in the present petition.
10. It is a settled legal position that once blood relatives are
granted validity either by the Committee or under orders of this
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
Court, the same must enure to the benefit of the petitioner unless
there is material distinction, which is absent in the present case. As
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Apoorva Vinay Nichale
vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors. 1, parity of
treatment must be ensured amongst close relatives where the
documentary record is common and inseparable.
11. In the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.2 the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that in cases where applicant relies upon the
Caste Validity Certificates issued to the relatives firstly, the Scrutiny
Committee must ascertain that the certificate is genuine and
secondly, the Scrutiny Committee will have to decide whether the
Applicant has established that the person to whom the validity
certificate relied upon by him has been issued is his blood relative.
If on the basis of report of Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee is
satisfied that the person in whose favour the caste validity
certificate has been issued is a blood relative of the Applicant and
lawful enquiry has been conducted before issuing the validity
certificate, the Scrutiny Committee will have to issue validity
2010 SCC Online Bom 1053
2023 SCC OnLine SC 326
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
certificate even if the Applicant does not satisfy the affinity test.
Resultantly, it is observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the caste
claim of an applicant cannot be rejected solely on the basis that the
applicant has failed in the affinity test and affinity test is not a
litmus test to prove the correctness of a caste or tribe claim in
every case.
12. In the present case, the record of the petitioner and his
brother is one and the same. The Committee's adverse findings
were already considered and rejected by this Court while allowing
the Writ Petition of the petitioner's brother namely Omkar Santosh
Chavan.
13. During the hearing, a pertinent query was made to the
learned AGP as to whether the order passed in favour of Omkar
Santosh Chavan has been challenged by the Scrutiny Committee.
The learned AGP candidly stated that no such challenge has been
preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the order
passed in Writ Petition No.23349 of 2019 stands confirmed and
binding.
14. It therefore, follows that the order of the Scrutiny
Committee invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim cannot be
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
sustained. To hold otherwise would result in two real brothers of
the same family being treated differently, one enjoying the
privileges of reservation while the other is deprived of them, which
is wholly untenable in law.
15. In aforementioned legal position judicial propriety demands
that we cannot take a different view of the matter. If the impugned
order is not set aside it would lead to an incongruous and
discriminatory situation where two real brothers would be treated
as belonging to different caste, such a result would lead to
anomalous situation. We, therefore, find that it is not necessary to
go into the merits of the matter. As a result the order dated 29 th
April, 2022 passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Pune, invalidating the Petitioner's tribe claim is quashed and set
aside, the case of the Petitioner is remanded back to the
Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee to pass appropriate orders
afresh keeping in mind the views expressed by this Court in case of
real brother of the Petitioner, Omkar Santosh Chavan, and also the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Apoorva Vinay
Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1 (Supra) as
well as in the recent decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
904 WP 11224 OF 2023, J.DOC
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
(Supra).
16. Accordingly, the order dated 20th April 2022 passed by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune, invalidating the petitioner's
claim, is quashed and set aside. The case of the petitioner is
remanded back to Respondent no. 2-Scrutiny Committee, to pass
appropriate orders, afresh, keeping in mind, the views expressed
by this Court in case of the brother of the petitioner viz. Omkar
Santosh Chavan and also the principles laid down in Apoorva
Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee (Supra).
The Scrutiny Committee shall undertake the said exercise and pass
appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of six weeks.
17. The original records produced by the learned AGP be
returned after pronouncement of the order.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
{
th
29 September 2025
Rajeshri Aher
