[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pankaj Pandit Khairnar vs State Of Maharashtra Thro. Its ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-AS:2494-DB 18-WP-70-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2026
Digitally signed Pankaj Pandit Khairnar,
by SATISH
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR
Date:
Age : 30 Years, Occupation : Social Work,
SANGAR
2026.01.20
11:19:49
+0530
Residing at : Chinchakhed Road,
Nandanvan Lans, Near Santoshimata
House, Pimpalgaon, Baswant,
Taluka : Niphad, District : Nashik,
Nashik : 422 209. ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik,
Through its Member-Secretary,
Having its Office at Doctor House,
Near CBC, District : Nashik, Nashik. ...Respondents
*****
Mr.R.K.Mendadkar a/w Ms.Jayshri Mendadkar and Ms.Prajakta
Pashte, Advocates for Petitioner.
Mr.N.C.Walimbe, Addl.G.P. a/w Mr.A.K.Naik, AGP, for the
Respondents-State.
*****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 16th JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)
1. Heard Mr.Mendadkar, the learned counsel appearing for the
18-WP-70-2026.doc
Petitioner and Mr.Walimbe, the learned Addl.G.P. for the
Respondents-State.
2. The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to the "Koli
Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated by the impugned
order dated 22nd February 2018 passed by the Respondent No.2-
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division,
Nashik.
3. The learned Addl.G.P. invited our attention to the impugned
order. It is submitted that the Committee has, for cogent reasons,
discarded the "Certificate of Validity" which does not call for
interference by this Court in Writ jurisdiction.
4. The Petitioner relied upon the "Certificate of Validity" which was
issued by the Respondent No.2-Committee in favour of the
Petitioner's father-Pandit Nana Khairnar, dated 19 th December 2005.
There is no dispute that such a "Certificate of Validity" is a genuine
document. Further, we notice from the findings of the Scrutiny
Committee that the said "Certificate of Validity" of the Petitioner's
father was issued after Police Vigilance Inquiry.
5. The genealogy placed by the Petitioner before the Committee
indicates that the Petitioner is the son of Pandit Nana Khairnar
18-WP-70-2026.doc
who has been issued with the "Certificate of Validity". There is no
dispute that the Petitioner is the son of Pandit Nana Khairnar.
6. The only reason why the Scrutiny Committee has discarded the
"Certificate of Validity" is that the names of the relatives which were
shown in the genealogy produced by Pandit Nana Khairnar is different
from the genealogy which is produced by the Petitioner before the
Scrutiny Committee. In our opinion, such an approach of the Scrutiny
Committee is erroneous. There is no dispute that the Petitioner is the
son of Pandit Nana Khairnar who has been issued with the "Certificate
of Validity". Further, when there is no dispute that such a Certificate is
genuine document which has been granted after following the due
procedure and after obtaining the Vigilance Cell Report and that the
Petitioner is the close blood relative of Pandit Nana Khairnar, the
invalidation of the caste claim for the reason mentioned by the
Committee is erroneous.
7. This Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale V/s. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others 1 in paragraph No.4,
has held thus:-
"4. We have considered the matter and we are of the view
that the petitioner's caste claim that she belongs to Kanjar
1 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401
18-WP-70-2026.doc
Bhat-Nomadic Tribe ought to have been accepted by the
Committee merely on the basis that identical caste claim of
her sister that she belongs to Kanjar Bhat has been allowed by
the Committee, even apart from the Government Resolution.
We are of the opinion that the guidelines provided by the said
Govt. Resolution are sound and based on sound principles. It
would indeed be chaotic otherwise. If the relationship by
blood is established or not doubted, and one such relative has
been confirmed as belonging to a particular caste, there is no
reason why public time or money should be spent in the
committee testing the same evidence and making the same
conclusion unless of course the Committee finds on the
evidence that the validity of the certificate of such relation has
been obtained by fraud."
8. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of
Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti V/s. State of
Maharashtra and Others2 held that 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.
Thus, in Maharashtra Adiwasi (supra), the following three essential
prerequisites for granting caste validity certificates were outlined by
Their Lordships at the paragraph 24 of the judgment quoted above:
(i) The applicant must establish a clear and specific relationship
with the person in whose favour the validity certificate has
2 (2023) 16 Supreme Court Cases 415
18-WP-70-2026.doc
been issued;
(ii) The Scrutiny Committee must verify whether the validity
certificate was granted to the applicant's blood relative after
due enquiry and in accordance with prescribed procedure;
and
(iii) The Scrutiny Committee must ascertain the genuineness of
the validity certificate relied upon.
9. Taking support from the aforesaid decisions, we hold that as
the Petitioner's father has been granted "Certificate of Validity"
which satisfies the test laid down in the aforesaid decisions, even
the Petitioner is entitled to have his caste claim validated. The
impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee, is therefore, set aside.
The Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue "Certificate of
Validity" to the Petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadev"
Scheduled Tribe within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of
communication of the order.
10. With these observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.
11. Pending Applications, if any, also disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
