[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Aman Pundlik Randai vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate ... on 8 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:5525-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2813 OF 2024
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2024
--
WRIT PETITION NO. 2813 OF 2024
Shri Sarvesh Bapurao Randai,
Aged about 17 years, Occu. - Student
(Aspirant of Engineering Education),
Natural Guardian Father :-
Bapurao Kawadu Randai,
R/o Plot No. 843/E, New Nandanwan,
Near Shyamdham Mandir,
Nagpur- 440009, M-7722067995.
[email protected] .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
Through its Member Secretary,
Giripeth, Nagpur - 440 010.
Email: [email protected] .... RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2024
Shri. Aman Pundlik Randai,
Aged about 22 years, Occu.- Student
(Aspirant to 3 Year LLB Education),
R/o At Wani Po: Nand, Tah. Bhiwapur
Dist. Nagpur- 441203, M-9146732193
[email protected] .... PETITIONER
Judgment 2 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
// VERSUS //
The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
Through its Member Secretary,
Giripeth, Nagpur - 440 010.
Email: [email protected] .... RESPONDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. P. Khare, Advocate with Mr. N. D. Jambhule,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 10/03/2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 08/04/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission
by consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2813/2024 is the
cousin brother of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2812/2024,
hence, both these petitions are decided by this common
judgment and the Writ Petition No. 2813/2024 shall be
considered as the lead petition.
Judgment 3 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
3. The Petitioners by these petitions are challenging the
orders dated 18.01.2024 and 16.01.2024 passed by the
Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby
invalidating the caste claims of the Petitioners to the 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted under the Scheduled Tribe
Order, 1950.
4. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2813/2024
submitted his caste claim to the Respondent Committee on
08.05.2023 whereas the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.
2812/2024 submitted his caste claim to the Respondent
Committee on 14.07.2022. The Respondent Committee
conducted a Police Vigilance inquiry and issued show cause
notice to the Petitioners on 06.06.2023, to which the Petitioners
duly submitted their reply. By its order dated 18.01.2024 and
16.01.2024, the Respondent Committee invalidated the tribe
claim of the Petitioners.
5. In support of their tribe claim, the Petitioners have
submitted following documents of pre-constitutional period:
Judgment 4 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Land Record P1 (Bandobast Misal) Mana 1912-1917
Dhanya S/o Rama (Cousin Great Great Kunbi
Grandfather of the Petitioner)
2 Birth Extract of Female Child 'Gaya' born Mana 14.01.1930
to Bhadya Mana
6. The Petitioners further submitted that, apart from the
documents of pre-constitutional period, a Validity Certificate is
also issued to Bapurao Randai, who is the father of the
Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2813/2024 and the Cousin Uncle
of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2812/2024.
7. The Family Tree submitted by the Petitioner is
reproduced herein:
oa'kkoG
tkuck janbZ
eax: Hknq
dq-rqGlkckbZ
dq-x;k dq-l;k dqa-cdw dq-tkbZ eqyxh eksuk doMq
iqaMyhd dq-csch dq-lqxa/kk dq-ek;k
nsojko ckiwjko ;knojko dq-banw
Judgment 5 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied upon
the following Citations in support of their claim:
(i) Writ Petition No. 3649/2021 (Vinod Zingarji
Chaudhari .vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur & Ors.) dated 30.09.2025;
(ii) State of Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Mana Adim Jamat
Mandal, (2006) 4 SCC 98;
(iii) Mana Adim Jamat Mandal vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., 2003(3) Mh.L.J. 513;
(iv) Kunda Vishwanath Ghodmare vs. Committee for Scrutiny
and Verification of Tribes Claims & Ors., Civil Appeal
No.8189/2001 with other connected matters, dated
16.01.2008;
(v) Curative Petition (Civil) No.4/2008 in R.P. (Civil)
No.488/2006 in Civil Appeal No.5270/2004, State of
Maharashtra & Ors. vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, dated
26.02.2008;
(vi) Writ Petition No. 5102/2021 (Ku. Ankita d/o Gautam
Gadmade vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
dated12.10.2022;
(vii) Writ Petition No. 8298/2019 (Prathamesh Ravindra
Thakur through his father & natural guardian vs. State of
Maharashtra & ors.) dated 30.07.2019;
(viii) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti
vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785 and
(ix) Writ Petition No. 472/2020 (Ishwar s/o Naga Bondalwar
& Anr. vs. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gadchiroli & Ors.), dated 26.07.2021.
9. Per Contra, The Respondent Caste Scrutiny
Committee, in its Reply, contended that, the Petitioner has
Judgment 6 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
submitted a single old document of the year 1930 in support of
his tribe claim which is not related to the family of the
Petitioner, in fact, it is related to one Shri Bisan Barekar. It is
further contended that, all the other old documents submitted
by the Petitioner states the caste as "Mana Kunbi", wherein it
can be inferred that 'Kunbi' is a separate O.B.C caste than 'Mana'
Schedule Tribe.
10. It is further contended by the Respondent Committee
that the Petitioners failed to establish Socio-Cultural Affinity
towards 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe and therefore the claims of the
Petitioners were rightly rejected by the Respondent Committee.
11. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance
of the learned Additional Government Pleader and considered
the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
12. It appears that out of these documents, two
documents produced by the Petitioner were pre 1950 period,
whereas one document showing entry as 'Mana' is of 1938
Judgment 7 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
found in vigilance enquiry. So far as document of P1 (Bandobast
Misal) of village Dhamangaon in respect of Dhanya S/o Rama,
there is an entry of 'Mana Kumbi', who is cousin great
grandfather of the Petitioner. The document of the year 1930,
which is Birth Extract in respect of Bhadya Mana blessed with
female child namely 'Gaya'. This document is of the year 1930,
which was discarded by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground
that the said document is certified copy and this document was
obtained by one Bisan Barekar in the year 2004 and therefore, it
was concluded by the Committee that the said birth extract
entry is not from applicant's family but from the Bisan Barekar's
family. The allegations of the Committee is that the applicants
are belonging to Sherkar family and misused the another's
family record. Also the father's name of Bhadya Mana is not
mentioned on the said extract and original birth entry is also not
in existence to verify the birth entry extract.
13. So far as Extract of P1 of 1930-38 is also procured by
the Vigilance wherein Janba S/o Rama Mana and Wanba S/o
Rama Mana shows as 'Mana'. It is also observed by the
Judgment 8 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Committee that the Petitioner produced revenue record of 1954-
55 pertaining to Mangaru Janba and Kawdu Bhadu as well as
document of 1912-17 extract of P1 and document of 1930-38
pertaining to Janba S/o Rama Mana and Wanba S/o Rama
Mana shows that the said field is an ancestral one and received
by the forefather through inheritance. The Vigilance Cell also
procured the documents dated 01.05.1964, 01.07.1967 and
26.09.1967 showing entry as 'Mana'. The oldest entry of
applicant's family is 'Mana Kunbi' of 1912-17. So far as reason
for discarding the document of 1930 is that the certified copy of
said document was obtained by Shri Bisan Barekar and therefore
it is the document pertaining to that Barekar's family.
14. The Scrutiny Committee has reproduced the
genealogy given by the petitioner's father Shri Bapurao Kawadu
Randai during the vigilance enquiry dated 16.01.2006. In the
said document, name of Bhadu is appearing so also the name of
Gaya D/o. Bhadu is also appearing. In view thereof, there is no
reason whatsoever to discard this document just because one
Bisan Barekar applied for certified copy and helped the father of
Judgment 9 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Petitioner. There is no law that no person can apply for the
document except by the family member. Moreover, there is
nothing on record to show that said Bisan Barekar who applied
for certified copy is having Bhadu or Gaya in his family. The
same document is accepted by earlier Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee mainly invalidated the claim on the ground that in
the revenue record of 1912-17 entry is of 'Mana Kunbi'. The
Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that there are entries of
'Mana' prior to 1950, not only in the documents produced by the
petitioners but also procured by the Vigilance Cell.
15. In the document of 1930, there was no reason for
forefather of the Petitioner to record Mana. The Scrutiny
Committee has considered irrelevant facts for invalidating tribe
claim of the Petitioner. The document dated 14.01.1930 in
respect of female child born to Bhadya Mana, the Committee
failed to appreciate that the name of Gaya appearing in family
tree as daughter of Bhadya. Moreover, the said document also
shows that Bhadya belongs to Wani, which is native place of
forefather of the Petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny Committee went
Judgment 10 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
on considering irrelevant material discarding the old documents
prior to 1950 for erroneous reasons.
16. The Scrutiny Committee also declined to consider the
Validity Certificate issued in favour of father of the Petitioner
Bapurao Kawdu Randai on the ground that the binding
procedure of verification is lacking from the order. In fact, the
Committee is not having any authority to review the order
passed by earlier competent authority. Moreover, it is also not
mandatory in every case vigilance should be directed. If the
documents placed on record are sufficient to come to the
conclusion that the person belongs to specific category, there is
no reason to direct the vigilance. Even if, there is no enquiry
conducted, no fault can be attributed to the said Bapurao
Randai. It is settled position of law that unless there is a case of
fraud, the subsequent Committee cannot question the validity
certificate issued by the competent Scrutiny Committee. In
respect of genealogy reproduced by the Committee, which was
produced by Bapurao Kawadu Randai in his case, the remark
was passed that the names of family members i.e. Wanba B/o
Judgment 11 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Janba B/o Dhanya S/o Rama suppressed by Bapurao Kawadu
Randai, which is proved by the land records. One cannot say
that it is suppression, in fact, the family tree from Janba is
reproduced by Bapurao Randai, of which branch he is a
successor. The document of Gaya D/o Bhadya is duly accepted
by the then Scrutiny Committee. In the present matter, entry of
1912-17 is produced by the Petitioner himself as well as
procured by the vigilance cell.
17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner drawn our
attention to the Committee's observation in case of Kunda
Vishwanath Ghodmare (supra) that -
"the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly recorded the fact
that .......... there is Mana community, apart from
Mana Scheduled Tribe and this is a question of fact
which has to be examined by the Scrutiny
Committee on the basis of evidence .......
On perusal of the Judgment of Kunda Vishwanath
Ghodmare (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
"Learned Counsel for the State of Maharashtra has
submitted that there is "Mana" community also apart
from the "Mana" tribe. This is a question of fact
which has to be examined by the Scrutiny
Committee on the basis of evidence. We do not wish
to express any opinion on that part of the matter."
Judgment 12 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
The Hon'ble Apex Court nowhere endorsed the view
that there is "Mana" community apart from "Mana" Scheduled
Tribe. The Petitioner placed on record Validity Certificate
granted in favour of Kunda Vishwnath Ghodmare.
18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed
reliance on Judgment in Ku. Ankita d/o Gautam Gadmade
(supra), wherein this Court observed in paras 5 and 7 as under :
"5. .......... The validity certificate granted to a
person stands as a conclusive proof of social status of
that person, unless it is revoked for legally
admissible reasons. Therefore, what stands as a
conclusive proof of a social status of a person also
stands as sufficient and reasonable proof of the
social status of a person, who is related from
paternal side to a person in whose favour the validity
certificate has been granted. .........."
7. .......... The Scrutiny Committee ought to have
approached the Supreme Court and placed before it
the material supporting the doubt of the Scrutiny
Committee and sought necessary order from the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in review. ......."
19. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed
reliance on Ishwar s/o Naga Bondalwar (supra), in support of
his contention that allegations of suppression made by the
Judgment 13 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Committee is without any basis and unsustainable. This Court in
para 7 observed as under :
"7. .......... The premise on which the Caste
Validity Certificates issued to the petitioners has
been cancelled is that the petitioners failed to bring
before the Scrutiny Committee the old revenue
records of 1922-24. In our view such alleged act of
the petitioners 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.
The 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
Certificates of the petitioners to have conducted an
inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. The Scrutiny
Committee however did not deem it necessary to
have such inquiry being undertaken by the Vigilance
Cell. The Scrutiny Committee was thus in a position
to discover the old revenue records of 1922-24 by
exercise of due diligence which could have been
done by holding an inquiry by the Vigilance
Cell..........."
20. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed
reliance on Prathamesh Ravindra Thakur through his father &
Judgment 14 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
natural guardian (supra), wherein this Court observed in para 9
as under :
"9. The impugned order is full of conjectures and
premises. It is totally unsustainable. So long as the
certificate of validity has not been doubted or
suspected and held to be vitiated by fraud or
misrepresentation of facts, after a show cause notice
being issued to the certificate holder, a due inquiry
as contemplated by law held and the certificate
confiscated and cancelled, the same could not have
been omitted from consideration or the same could
not have been termed as having no probative value.
This approach of the Committee in the instant case
exhibits total perversity. The impugned order is
vitiated by error of law apparent on the face of the
record."
21. Thus, it can be seen that pre-constitutional
documents asserts that the Petitioner is known in the society as
"Mana" as well as "Mana Kunbi" and both the records have
greater probative value. It is a matter of record that the
Government issued a Resolution dated 24.04.1985 and declared
that the Petitioners 'Mana' community has known Scheduled
Tribe 'Mana' and provided some brief description so as to
identify said Mana. Being aggrieved by this GR dated
24.04.1985, the Mana Adim Jamat Mandal approached to this
Court and, this Court in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal vs. State of
Judgment 15 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Maharashtra (supra) after referring to the description of 'Mana'
community in Russell's "Castes and Tribes of Central Provinces"
observed in paras 24 and 27 as under :
"24. In our opinion what has been stated by
Scheduled Castes Order issued under Article 341 of
the Constitution must apply to the Scheduled Tribes
Order issued under Article 342 of the Constitution.
Plain reading of Entry 18 would show that Mana
community is included in Scheduled Tribes and it is
not permissible for the State Government or the
Courts to deny the benefits available to the
Scheduled Tribe community to the members
belonging to the Mana community. In the light of
the clear dictum of the Supreme Court in Palghat
Thandan's case the State Government has no
jurisdiction to issue the impugned Government
Resolutions of 1985 and Government Resolution of
1995 declaring Mana community as Special
Backward Class. The modification of Scheduled Tribe
Order can only be made by the Parliament under the
provisions of Article 342. In any event even if it is
assumed that there was a separate community which
is called as Mana in Vidharbha region which has no
affinity with Gond tribe that community would also
fall within the scope of Scheduled Tribes Order by
virtue of the Amendment Act, 1976 and the State
Government was not entitled to issue orders or
circulars or resolutions contrary thereto. Since under
Entry 18 Manas are specifically included in the list of
Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of
Maharashtra, Manas throughout the State must be
deemed to be Scheduled tribe by reason of
provisions of the Scheduled Tribes Order. Once
Manas throughout the State are entitled to be
treated as a Scheduled Tribe by reason of the
Judgment 16 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Scheduled Tribes Order as it now stands, it is not
open to the State Government to say otherwise, as it
has purported to do in various Government
Resolutions. The Mana community in the instant
case having been listed in the Scheduled Tribes
Order as it now stands, it is not open to the State
Government or, indeed to this court to embark upon
an enquiry to determine whether a section of Manas
was excluded from the benefit of the Scheduled
Tribes Order.
27. In the result, in view of the foregoing
discussion, petition is allowed. The State
Government is directed to grant to all members of
Mana community the benefits due to Scheduled
Tribes included in the Schedule to the Scheduled
Tribes Order as amended upto date and issue to
them caste certificates accordingly. Government
Resolutions dated 24-4-1985, 19-6-1985 and 15-6-
1995 stand quashed and set aside so far as the Mana
community is concerned. Rule is accordingly made
absolute with no order as to costs."
The State challenged the said decision by filing an
appeal and Curative Petition, which came to be dismissed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court.
22. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed
reliance on Judgment in Vinod Zingarji Chaudhari (supra),
wherein this Court placed reliance on Judgment in Maharashtra
Judgment 17 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) and held in
12 as under :
"12. All other documents on which the petitioner
has relied are of pre-constitutional documents,
having the entries of 'Mana' community. The
Committee has relied on the affinity test though the
'Mana' entries are there. In view of the judgment of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in
2023(2) Mh.L.J. 785, the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that the affinity test is not a litmus test and the
documents of pre-independence era have the more
probative value in the eyes of law and have to be
considered."
This Court also held in para 13 on relying the
Judgment in Apoorva Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny
Committee, (2010) 6 Mh.L.J. 401 as under :
"13. The validity certificates issued to the cousin
of the petitioner is not considered by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. The cousin brother of the
petitioner has received the validity certificate on
30.12.2005. The cousin brother of the petitioner is
having validity certificate. As per the judgment of
this Court in the case of Apoorva Nichale Vs.
Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee reported in
(2010) 6 Mh.L.J. 401, if the blood relatives have
received the validity certificate, then on the basis of
same, the validity certificate can be issued to the
petitioners. This Court in paragraph No.7 has
observed as under :
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when
during the course of enquiry the candidate
Judgment 18 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
submits a caste validity certificate granted
earlier certifying that a blood relation of the
candidate belongs to the same caste as that
claimed by the applicant, the committee may
grant such certificate without calling for
Vigilance Cell Report."
23. Apart from that, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner placed reliance on Judgment in Maharashtra Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), wherein Full Bench
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 36 held as under :
"36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding
an enquiry is not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant, the case can be referred
to Vigilance Cell. While referring the case to
Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee must record
brief reasons for coming to the conclusion that it is
not satisfied with the material produced by the
applicant. Only after a case is referred to the
Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for
the conduct of affinity test will arise.
(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity
test cannot be conclusive either way. When an
affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the
result of the test along with all other material on
record having probative value will have to be taken
into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for
deciding the caste validity claim; and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide
a caste claim and is not an essential part in the
process of the determination of correctness of a caste
or tribe claim in every case."
Judgment 19 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
24. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on
many Judgments, however, we do not see any reason to refer
these judgments in view of the Judgments referred above.
25. It is submitted by the Petitioner that in Writ Petition
No. 1146/2014 (Sweta Bhagwan Chaudhari vs. The Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Ors. ) with connected
matters, dated 16.12.2015, the Committee through Government
Pleader stated that they have invoked authentic standard
parameters on the 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, whereas the
Committee decided adversely on authenticity in Petitioner's
matter without disclosing its foundation apparently based on
erroneous assumption.
26. As such, the Committee cannot ignored documents
prior to 1950 showing entry as 'Mana' in respect of Petitioners
forefather in blood relation from parents side. Only because
some entries of 'Mana Kunbi' that would not negate the Mana
entries prior to 1950, which are great probative value as
observed in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (supra) that Kunbi is
Judgment 20 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
affix or suffix to Mana, to show that they are agriculturist and
their profession is farming. This Court in para 3 held as under :
"3. Russell's "Castes and Tribes of Central Provinces",
Vol. IV at pp. 172-176 wherein a detailed description
of the Mana community is given. Under the heading
"Mana" it is stated :
..........................
A third group of Manas are now amalgamated
with the Kunbis as a regular sub-division of that
caste, though they are regarded as somewhat
lower than the others. They have also a number
of exogamous sects of the usual titular and
totalistic types, and a few recognizable names
being Marathi..... The social customs of the
Manas are the same as those of the other lower
Maratha castes, as described in the articles on
Kunbi, Kohli and Mahar... The Manas have
Bhats or gynecologists of their own caste, a
separate one being appointed for each sect".
27. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee are patently erroneous, perverse and are
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following
order :
(i) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.01.2024, passed in case
No. JC/TCSC/NGP/I/203/31/2023, and order dated
16.01.2024, passed in case Nos. JC/TCSC/NGP/I/
849/31/2022, passed by the Respondent - Scheduled
Judgment 21 J-WP No.2813.2024+1.odt
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur are
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that
they belong to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur is hereby directed to issue the
validity certificates of "Mana" Scheduled Tribe to the
Petitioners within a period of eight weeks.
28. 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: 08/04/2026 18:16:24
