[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pocham S/O Ashalu Togarwar vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 1 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5116-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5731 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5732 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5734 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5730 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2018
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5733 OF 2018
-----
WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2018
Manohar S/o Ashalu Togarwar,
Age 36 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
4) The Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Office of Dy.SP, Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5731 OF 2018
Ashalu S/o Pocham Togarwar,
Age 54 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.
At/P R/o. B-2, Plot No.1103,
Raunak City, Adhar Wadi,
Kalyan (W) Mumbai. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
4) The Dy. Chief Officer,
Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority,
Gruha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar,
Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051.
5) The General Manager,
Dena Bank, C-10, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2018
Laxmayya S/o Chandrayya Togarwar,
Age 62 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. .... PETITIONER
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5732 OF 2018
Mukool S/o Durgesh Togarwar,
Age 25 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5734 OF 2018
Kum. Jyoti D/o Ashalu Togarwar,
Age 31 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.
At/P R/o. B-2, Plot No.1103,
Raunak City, Adhar Wadi, Kalyan(W). .... PETITIONER
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5730 OF 2018
Laxman S/o Pocham Togarwar,
(Since Deceased) through LR's.
Amendment 1A) Manda Wd/o Laxman Togarwar,
carried out as Age 63 years, Occ. Housewife,
per the Hon'ble
Court order R/o. Village Allapalli,
dt.30.03.2026 Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.
1B) Smt. Snehal W/o Shripad Ganjiwar,
Age 36 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Bhamragad Road, Mannewar
Colony, Ward No.6, Tahsil-Aheri, Allapalli,
P.O. Allapalli, District Gadchiroli. .... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
Judgment 5 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
4) The Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Division No.1, Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2018
Kum. Aanchal D/o Ashalu Togarwar,
Age 23 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.
At/P R/o B-2, Plot No. 1103,
Raunak City, Adhar Wadi, Kalyan (W). .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2018
Pocham S/o Ashalu Togarwar,
Age 70 years, Occ. Agri. & Labour,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of Sub-Divisional Officer,
Aheri, District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5733 OF 2018
Prajwal S/o Ashalu Togarwar,
Age 16 years, Occ. Student,
R/o. Village Allapalli,
Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.
Through his natural guardian
Shri Ashalu Pocham Togarwar,
Age 52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Flat No.402, Tirupati Residency,
Piplot, Surat (Gujrat). .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli,
through its Member-Secretary.
3) The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of SDO, Aheri,
District Gadchiroli. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate with Mr. Anil Golegaonkar,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. V. Narale, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondents/State.
Mr. A. M. Sudame, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in
Writ Petition No.5731/2018.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment 7 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 01.04.2026
COMMON JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. As similar issue is involved in all the matters and they
are being relatives, the matters are taken up together for
consideration and finally heard at the request and consent of the
parties. The Writ Petition No.5735/2018 is taken and treated as
lead petition and facts and documents in the said matter has
taken into consideration for the common judgment.
3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to 'Mannewar'
Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No.18. It is submitted
that the petitioner was required to file second Writ Petition
No.4095/2012, which came to be disposed of on 31.07.2013.
The said petition came to be partly allowed as there was no
opportunity granted to the petitioner to made out his claim.
Moreover, the petitioner was present but he was shown as
absent and material document which he has placed on record,
the entry of 29.01.1950 showing Lachaman Ashanna as
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
'Mannewar' in his death certificate is also not considered. In
view thereof, this Court quashed and set aside the impugned
order dated 11.07.2012.
4. It is further submitted that in 3rd round of litigation
even after observing by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1216/2014 dated 13.04.2015, whereby the order of
Committee dated 12.02.2014 was set aside and this Court
recorded that old documents of 1938 and 1950, pertaining to
entry of tribe in respect of Malla @ Pochya and Lachman
Ashanna have great probative evidentiary value. These two
documents rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on flimsy ground
and passed the impugned order dated 25.07.2018.
5. The petitioner submits that he belongs to 'Mannewar'
Scheduled Tribe and there is a sufficient supporting and
clinching documentary evidence in support of his tribe claim.
The petitioner originally resident of village Allapalli, Tahsil
Aheri, District Gadchiroli. There is a Caste Certificate issued by
the Executive Magistrate, Aheri dated 14.08.1991 in favour of
father of the petitioner namely Ashalu S/o Pocham Togarwar
certifying that he belongs to 'Mannewar' Scheduled Tribe. It
Judgment 9 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
appears that in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition
No.1216/2014, this Court specifically observed that, "the
Scrutiny Committee has erroneously observed that the
petitioners have sought the benefit meant for 'Mannewar'
Scheduled Tribe by fabricating a document, as there is nothing
on record to show that the petitioners had interpolated the
extract of Admission Register in which the caste of one of the
petitioners was recorded as 'Mannepawar'. This is not a case
where the initial entry was 'Mannepawar' and the petitioner had
interpolated the document or converted the entry from
'Mannepawar' to 'Mannewar'. The Scrutiny Committee was
directed to decide afresh and matter was remitted back".
6. Per contra, the respondent Committee contends that
the petitioner's tribe claim was duly verified as per Rule 12(2)
through a detailed inquiry conducted by the Police Vigilance Cell
including home, school and record verification. It is submitted
that the Vigilance Cell found entries of 'Mannepawar' in the
school and revenue records of the petitioner's blood relative.
The extract of Admission Register relied upon by the petitioner
showed apparent interpolation. The vigilance inquiry also
revealed inconsistencies in the petitioner's statements regarding
Judgment 10 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
tribal traits and customs. On this basis, the respondents contend
that the petitioner does not belong to 'Mannewar' Scheduled
Tribe and had obtained the caste certificate by suppressing
material facts to avail reservation benefits.
7. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length. Perused the record and proceedings of Caste Scrutiny
Committee with the assistance of the learned Assistant
Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by
the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
8. For the sake of convenience, family tree is
reproduced as under :
9. The petitioners- is produced 12 documents in support
of his claim. All these documents are duly verified by the
Judgment 11 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
vigilance cell. The document pertaining to Malla @ Pochya
Mannewar, great great grandfather shows that he blessed with
one son on 10.11.1938. The another document is in respect of
cousin grandfather namely Lachaman S/o Ashanna Togarwar,
the extract of death register dated 28.01.1950, there is an entry
of tribe as 'Mannewar'. There are also other entries which were
duly verified by the vigilance cell except one document in
respect of Shrinivas Ushalu Togarwar, there is no remark against
these documents. The document at Sr. No.6 in the vigilance cell
report having remark that it does not match with the family tree
(tqGr ukgh).
10. The learned Counsel for the respondent Scrutiny
Committee submitted that there are adverse entries showing
caste as 'Manewar', 'Mannepawar', Manyepawar' and 'Manywar'
etc. There is a general observation by the Scrutiny Committee
that taking benefit of similarity in the caste name, many non-
tribal communities used to obtain bogus certificates. It appears
that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is presupposing that the
applicants are taking undue advantage and grabbing facility
provided to the Scheduled Tribe by the Constitution. The oldest
entry appears to be of 10.11.1938, which was duly verified by
Judgment 12 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
the vigilance cell and there is no remark against this document,
however the Caste Scrutiny Committee has evolved a novel
reason and discarded the document on the ground that the
signature on the rubber stamp does not match to the second
signature. There was no reason to discard this document, nor
there is any remark by vigilance cell. The Committee on its own
presumed on the basis of surmises and made an absurd
observation that the Local Government peoples representatives
have been influenced by pressurizing the Officers and the
Officers used to manipulate the record by insertion,
interpolation etc. It needs to be noted here that this Court
observed as discussed above, that the statement made by the
Committee is erroneous, in spite of this fact, the Scrutiny
Committee is bold enough to record such findings without being
there any basis.
11. So far as document of 1950 in respect of Lachman
S/o Ashanna Mannewar is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee
discarded this document on the ground that it is written in
different ink and different handwriting. In fact, there is no such
remark by the vigilance cell against this document about any
difference in ink or in handwriting. Moreover, the petitioner has
Judgment 13 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
placed on record certified copy of document which has
presumptive value that it is as per record. We have not seen any
interpolation in the scan copy reproduced by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee in the order. The Scrutiny Committee has not taken
any expert opinion. In our considered opinion, the Committee
has no regard for the order passed by this Court and went on
presuming and assuming that the applicants are grabbing the
benefit of the Scheduled Tribe people.
12. The petitioner herein filed a detailed reply to the
vigilance cell report, wherein he has contended that, "oldest
document in respect of his great great grandfather Malla Wald
Pochya and Lachman Ashanna are duly verified, they are oldest
entries of 1938 and 1950. So far as entries of 'Manewar',
'Mannepawar', Manyepawar' and 'Manywar' are concerned,
there is no other caste or tribe listed in any of the reserved
category list other than 'Mannewar' and since 'Mannewar' is
found to be correct and proper, it is conclusive proof. He has also
pointed out that 'Mannewar' is a small tribe having his own
characteristics which belonging to South or Telgu speaking
portion of Chanda district, where they mustered about 1600
persons in 1911. The name Mannewar is the derived form of
Judgment 14 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
Telgu word "Mannem" meaning forest while "war" is the plural
termination in Telgu. Mannewar thus signifying the people of
forest". It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not
appreciated the reply filed by the petitioner in its proper
perspective, in fact, there is no caste like 'Manewar',
'Mannepawar', Manyepawar' and 'Manywar' etc., but it is only
'Mannewar' caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. The
documents wherein such entries are there, it is nothing but the
corrupted language or pronunciation or writing of the
Mannewar word.
13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on
Judgment in Writ Petition No. 2594 of 2018, (Satyanarayan
Yellaya Gare vs. Chief Executive, Officer, Nagar Parishad,
Gadchiroli and others), dated 14.01.2026, wherein this Court
relying on Judgment in Nikhil s/o Sanjay Bodewar vs. State of
Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and
Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai (Writ Petition
No.1212/2019), decided on 11.03.2025, held in para 19 as
under :
19. So far as contention of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee that there are some entries of
'Mannepawar', which are adverse, however, this
Judgment 15 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
issue is already decided in the matter of Nikhil s/o
Sanjay Bodewar (supra), wherein the petitioner has
questioned the order by which claim of the
petitioner for issuance of validity of belonging to
'Mannewar' Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected. In
the said petition, the entry of Mannepawar which
found to be the basis for rejection of the claim of the
petitioner as that of belonging to Mannewar
Scheduled Tribe. The reason for invalidating the
caste claim in the present matter is also
Mannepawar entries. This Court observed in the
above referred judgment as under :
"7. As regards the available evidence in the
form of documents if appreciated, two reasons
are recorded by the Committee viz.
'Mannepawar' entry recorded in the school
record of the grandfather - Lachanna and
absence of entry of the tribal land in the revenue
record of land owned by the mother of the
petitioner - Ushatai.
As regards adverse entry of 'Mannepawar'
is concerned, when confronted with the learned
Assistant Government Pleader as to existence of
'Mannepawer' caste, on instructions, he has
fairly conceded that there is no caste as
'Mannepawar' in any of the statute dealing with
the caste.
8. As such, there are consistent entries of
'Mannewar' not only in relation to the
grandfather of the petitioner but also in relation
to the father of the petitioner. As such, the
reasons cited by the Committee for rejection of
the claim of the petitioner thereby recording a
finding that the caste entry in the record of the
grandfather of the petitioner is 'Mannepawar'
would lead to negation of the claim cannot be
sustained.
Judgment 16 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
10. We are equally required to be sensitive of
the fact that the parties like the petitioner
inherits his caste from his father. No doubt, even
if the document in relation to his mother is taken
into account, in absence of entry of Scheduled
Tribe in the revenue record the land can be
transferred to non-tribal, cannot be accepted as a
basis for negating the claim of the petitioner,
particularly when such document is in relation to
the mother of the petitioner. The negative
finding recorded by the Committee, in our
opinion, has no basis in law to infer that the
petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to
Scheduled Tribe category when relevant rules
contemplate that 'blood relation' has to be
construed as relation from father's side."
14. The Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate
that there are consistent entries prior to cut of date i.e. 1956,
showing Tribe as 'Mannewar' in respect of great great
grandfather in the year 1938 and cousin grandfather of 1950.
The reason given for discarding these documents is not at all
sustainable, specifically when this Court has already considered
its probative value in earlier round of litigation.
15. In view of the Judgment passed in Nikhil s/o Sanjay
Bodewwar (supra), the ground of adverse entries showing
Mannepawar is not open for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to
discard the claim of the petitioner. So far as this Court in the
Judgment 17 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
matter of Satyanarayan Yellaya Gare (supra), relied on
Judgment of Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009)
10 SCC 268, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 14 and 15
held as under :
"14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to
on which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the
conclusion that the word "lu" was interpolated in the
register of the school more particularly when it was
not so opined by the Police Inspector who had
conducted the enquiry. Whether interpolation by
addition has taken place can be stated by a
handwriting expert or by comparison of admitted
letters of a person with this disputed one. It is an
admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee had
never attempted to get an expert's opinion nor itself
had compared the disputed letters with admitted one
of the appellant.
15. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by
the Scrutiny Committee that the word "lu" was
interpolated will have to be regarded as not based on
any credible evidence. The Police Inspector had never
taken care to find out whether the word "lu" was
subsequently added by the school authorities or by the
appellant. It was necessary for the said officer to
undertake such an exercise in view of the specific
defence of the appellant that the school record was
lying with the school authorities and he had no
opportunity whatsoever to tamper with the same".
16. Thus, the contention of the Caste Scrutiny Committee
that there is a difference in ink and handwriting is nothing but
erroneous attempt to discard the documents. The documents
Judgment 18 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
pertaining to year 1938 and 1950, those are certified copies
having great presumptive value and its presumption will remain
till its rebuttal. However, there is nothing on record to rebut
such presumption. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
has not placed anything on record to show that there is any
caste 'Mannepawar' is in existence. Moreover, the oldest entries
are showing 'Mannewar', therefore, the old entries are prevailed
over the subsequent entries.
17. We have perused the original record and document,
in the first place it is a Xerox copy of the document, therefore,
there is no question of noting any difference in ink. Moreover,
the observation of the Committee that two entries having
difference in ink and handwriting are of same day is also
incorrect as first entry is of 28.01.1950 and second entry is of
dated 29.01.1950.
18. Admittedly, the caste 'Mannewar' has been included
in the Scheduled Tribe in the year 1956. As such, the entry of
1938 and 1950 cannot be disbelieved because at the relevant
time, the persons in whose respect the document is produced,
Judgment 19 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
they were not aware that they are going to be enlisted as
Scheduled Tribe and will get the benefits of their tribe.
19. So far as affinity test is concerned, it is well settled
position of law that affinity test is not a litmus test. Moreover,
the petitioners are residing in tribal area, what is held in Anand
vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims &
Ors., 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919, wherein some broad parameters are
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under :
"(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater
reliance may be placed on pre-Independence
documents because they furnish a higher degree of
probative value to the declaration of status of a caste,
as compared to post-Independence documents. In case
the applicant is the first generation ever to attend
school, the availability of any documentary evidence
becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for
the rejection of his claim. In fact the mere fact that he
is the first generation ever to attend school, some
benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be
given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on
the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be
tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an
opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on
the ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe,
a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades
ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the
cultural development happening around them, the
affinity test could serve as a determinative factor.
However, with the migrations, modernisation and
Judgment 20 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
contact with other communities, these communities
tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not
essentially match with the traditional characteristics of
the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as a
litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant
with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an
applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is
entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot
per se be disregarded on the ground that his present
traits do not match his tribes' peculiar anthropological
and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode
of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of
dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to
corroborate the documentary evidence and should not
be the sole criteria to reject a claim."
20. Thus, the documentary evidence prior to cut off date
produced by the petitioner in support of his claim is having great
probative value and cannot be brushed aside lightly by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. There can be no reason for the suppression
or misrepresentation of facts to claim non-existence benefit of
being a Scheduled Tribe by that point of time.
21. As such, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee is untenable. In fact, the Caste Scrutiny Committee
bent upon to discard the validity to the petitioner, though there
is a Judgment of this Court holding earlier Committee's decision
as erroneous. Hence, the order passed by the respondent No.2 -
Caste Scrutiny Committee is not only erroneous but perverse
Judgment 21 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
and untenable in law. It needs to be noted here that it is 3 rd
round of litigation and in our considered opinion, the Caste
Scrutiny Committee just for the sake of invalidation, cannot
invalidated the genuine claim of the petitioner.
22. In view of that, we are inclined to allow the petition
and pass the following order :
(i) All the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 25.07.2018, passed in
case No.(1) lvk@vtizrl@xM@II@21@33@2003&04,
(2) lvk@vtizrl@xM@I@721@33@2013,
(3) lvk@vtizrl@xM@III@74@33@2014,
(4) lvk@vtizrl@xM@III@773@33@2013,
(5) lvk@vtizrl@xM@I@92@33@2017, &
(6) lvk@vtizrl@xM@III@1374@33@2013,
and also the impugned order dated 25.07.2018
passed in case Nos.
(1) lvk@vtizrl@xM@III@504@33@2013,
(2) lvk@vtizrl@xM@I@359@33@2012 &
(3) lvk@vtizrl@xM@I@405@33@2013,
passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli are hereby quashed and set
aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established
that they belong to "Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe.
Judgment 22 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt
(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, is hereby directed to
issue the validity certificates of "Mannewar"
Scheduled Tribe to all the Petitioners within a period
of eight weeks.
23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 01/04/2026 18:21:17
