[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Shivani Nagorao Bhopse vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, ... on 23 February, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:3091-DB
WP-808.26-J.odt
1/6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 808 OF 2026
PETITIONER : Shivani Nagorao Bhopse, aged 20 years,
Occu.: Education, R/o Bhatkuli,
Tah.Bhatkuli, & Distt. Amravati.
-Versus-
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary
General Administrative Department,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tiwasa-
Bhatkuli, Distt. Amravati.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shri G.N.Upadhyay, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms. H.N.Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
CLOSED ON : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. M. S. Jawalkar, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The petitioner's father had submitted all requisite
KHUNTE
WP-808.26-J.odt
documents, including her valid caste certificate dated 26/02/1996
issued by the Executive Magistrate, Amravati, certifying him as
belonging to Koli Mahadeo caste, who was the Competent Authority
at the relevant time. Despite sufficiency of documents and online
processing, the respondent No.2, issued cryptic observations/opinions
dated 26/12/2023 and 24/07/2024, which are arbitrary and contrary
to the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Rules, 2003.
4. The Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes,
Vimukta Castes, Other Backward Classes, and Special Backward Class
Caste Certificate (Regulation of Verification) Act, 2000 and the Rules,
2003 framed thereunder (hereinafter referred to "Act of 2000" and
"Rules of 2003") do not mandate production of pre-constitutional
documents, and the insistence on such documents by the respondent
No.2 is illegal, leaving the petitioner without any effective remedy
and necessitating the present petition. This Court, in Writ Petition
No.7787/2025 (Darshana Vinayak Jumale v. The Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & anr.) decided on 09/12/2025
and Writ Petition No.7863/2025 (Jay Vilas Ghate v. State of Mah. &
anr.) decided on 10/12/2025, has held that pre-constitutional
documents are not mandatory for issuance of caste certificates.
5. Since the petitioner's father already holds a valid caste
KHUNTE
WP-808.26-J.odt
certificate, the petitioner is entitled to issuance of caste certificate as
belonging to "Koli Mahadeo" Caste, as reaffirmed in Writ Petition
No.416/2023 (Bhagyesh s/o Yadav Thakare, minor thr. Guardian-
Father Yadav Mugutrao Thakare v. The S.T.Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee & anr.) decided on 06/09/2024, and the respondent No.2
ought to have issued the same instead of delaying the process.
6. As against this, the respondent No.2 submitted that the
petitioner failed to provide valid evidence of prior to 1950
documents, proving Scheduled Tribe status as required under the Act
of 2000 and the Rules of 2003 and therefore, the online application
was rejected, for the reason that the claim was improper.
7. Heard the submissions of both the parties at length and
perused the documents and citations placed on record.
8. We are placing reliance on Writ Petition No.2011/2024
(supra), wherein similar issues were dealt with by this Court and
relevant portions are reproduced as under :
"8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7081 of
2024 (Sushil S/o Rajendra Thakur and others Vs. The
Sub Divisional Officer, Daryapur, Dist. Amravati and
another) decided on 10th March, 2025. In the said
judgment, the identical issue was arose and this Court
has recorded its findings in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 as
under:
KHUNTE
WP-808.26-J.odt
(6)It is settled position of law that the competent
authority under Section 4 of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste
Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as
'Act of 2000') while issuing caste certificate is not
entitled to make a detailed enquiry as to the
validity of the claim of the petitioners of
belonging to particular Caste/Tribe; for that is the
job of the Committee constituted under Section 6
of the said Act.
(7)A perusal of the impugned orders
dated15/05/2024 (Annexures 4 to 8) passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, who is the competent
authority in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 2000,
would indicate that he has gone into the question
of validity of the claim of the petitioners, which is
impermissible in law. Thus, it seems that the Sub-
Divisional Officer exceeded its jurisdiction while
refusing to grant caste certificates to the
petitioners. Similar is the position in respect of the
order dated 28/08/2024 passed by the
respondent No.2 the Committee. The respondent
No.2 Committee has not considered the
documents produced on record by the petitioners
in their proper perspective.
(8) Apart from this, the position in this matter is
no longer res integra, but it is covered by the
judgment of this Court in Namdeo s/o. Baburao
Ingale and ors. vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
[2015(2)Mh.L.J.707], Dhanashree Ravindra Koli
and others V/s The state of Mah. & ors. In
W.P.No.8829/20021 decided on 12/08/21 and
followed subsequently in Vishal Namdeo Gopewad
vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its Member/Secretary,
Yavatmal and another [WP No. 4335/2023
decided on 01/09/2023], in view of which, the
KHUNTE
WP-808.26-J.odt
impugned orders dated 15/05/2024 passed by
respondent No.1 Sub Divisional Officer, as well as
the decision dated 28/08/2024 passed by the
respondent No.2 Committee, are hereby quashed
and set aside.
9. In view of above the said legal position, it is clear
that the respondent no.2 while exercising powers
under Section 4 of the Act, 2000 is not empowered to
delve into the question of validity of the claim of the
petitioners, the same is not permissible under the
provisions of law. Hence, we are of the opinion that
respondent no.1 exceeded his jurisdiction while
refusing to grant caste certificate to the petitioner."
9. In view of the above settled legal position, it is evident that
respondent No.2, while exercising powers under Section 4 of the Act
of 2000, was not required to delve into the question of validity of the
petitioner's caste claim. Such an exercise was clearly impermissible
under the provisions of law, and therefore, respondent No.2, by
rejecting the petitioner's application, acted beyond the scope of his
jurisdiction. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The respondent No.2-Sub-Divisional Officer, Tiwasa-Bhatkuli
is hereby directed to issue caste certificate to the petitioner
KHUNTE
WP-808.26-J.odt
under section 4 of the Act of 2000, within a period of three
weeks from the date of production of this order to his office.
(iii) The petitioner to appear before the respondent No.2 on
27/02/2026 at 11.00 am.
10. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to
costs.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J) (SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte KHUNTE
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/02/2026 18:27:19
