[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dilip Manohar Honkamble vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-AS:2496-DB 26-WP-11758-2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11758 OF 2016
Dilip Manohar Honkamble,
SATISH Age : 51 Years, Occupation : Nil,
RAMCHANDRA Residing at : C-2/303, Krishna Estate,
SANGAR
Near Bharat College, Hendrepada,
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA Badlapur (East), District : Thane. ...Petitioner
SANGAR
Date: 2026.01.20
11:23:59 +0530 Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary, Social Justice
and Special Assistance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032.
2. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.1, Through its Member
Secretary, Having its Office at Konkan
Bhavan, 5th Floor, room No.524, CBD,
Belapur, Navi Mumbai : 400 614.
3. Directorate of Health Services,
Maharashtra State, Having its Office
at Arogya Bhavan, St George's Hospital
Compound, P.D'mello Road, Near CST,
Mumbai : 400 001.
4. Executive Magistrate, Ulhasnagar,
Taluka : Ulhasnagar, District : Thane. ...Respondents
*****
Mr.R.K.Mendadkar a/w Ms.Jayshri Mendadkar and Ms.Prajakta
Pashte, Advocates for Petitioner.
Ms.Kavita N. Solunke, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt.R.A.Salunkhe, AGP, for
Respondents-State.
Ms.Gauri Patil - Law Officer for Respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny
Committee.
*****
Satish Sangar 1/7
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 21:35:09 :::
26-WP-11758-2016.doc
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 16th JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The caste claim of the Petitioner is invalidated by the
Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the
Petitioner or his father has not been able to demonstrate that he has
been permanently residing in the State of Maharashtra prior to 10 th
August 1950. The learned Addl.G.P. argued in support of the
impugned order.
3. Our attention is invited to the findings recorded by the Scrutiny
Committee. We may straightway refer the Affidavit-in-Reply which has
been filed by the Respondents. In the Affidavit-in-Reply, it is stated
that the Petitioner is a migrant from the State of Karnataka. It is stated
that the Petitioner submitted Transfer Certificate of his father namely
Manohar Subana Kamble which was issued by the Headmaster Kannad
Model School, Shedbal, Taluka : Athani, District : Belgaum, Karnataka
State in which the date of birth is shown as 18 th May 1940 and last
attendance of student is shown as 9th June 1968. It is stated that from
the said document, it seems that the Petitioner's father was residing in
26-WP-11758-2016.doc
the State of Karnataka prior to deemed date i.e. prior to 10 th August
1950. In the Affidavit, the Scrutiny Committee has mentioned that
village namely Shedbal, Taluka : Athani is not shown in the list
published by the State Government in the Government Resolution
dated 10th July 2008 which was published by the State Government
with respect to "the appointment of Marathi speaking candidates from
the 865 villages claimed by the Government of Maharashtra in the
Karnataka border area to posts in the Maharashtra Service".
4. We find that the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim
of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has not been able to
demonstrate his permanent residence in the State of Maharashtra prior
to 10th August 1950. The said finding is completely erroneous. The
Petitioner's father as can be seen from the Affidavit-in-Reply of the
Respondents themselves, was resident of District : Belgaum. Section 7
of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 provides for "Formation of a
new Mysore State--As from the appointed date, there shall be formed
a new State to be known as the State of Mysore comprising Belgaum,
district except Chandgad taluka and Bijapur, Dharwar and Kanara
districts, in the existing State of Bombay ." Thus, the Belgaum District
was part of the erstwhile State of Bombay prior to the formation of the
26-WP-11758-2016.doc
new Bombay from Maharashtra State.
5. There is no dispute that 'Chambar caste' which the Petitioner is
claiming was recognized as Scheduled Caste in the State of Karnataka
as well as the State of Maharashtra The Petitioner, thus, has established
his residence in Belgaum District which was part of the erstwhile State
of Bombay and is now a part of the State of Karnataka.
6. The controversy in the present Petition is squarely covered by the
various decisions of this Court. To draw support, we may rely on the
decision of this Court in Rajendra Shripati Malage V/s. State of
Maharashtra and others decided on 26th October 2018. It would be
fruitful to reproduce the relevant paragraphs of the said decision which
read thus:-
"3] The claim of the Petitioner is rejected only on the
ground that the Petitioner is not a resident of State of
Maharashtra and as such is not entitled to be treated as
Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra.
4] The issue is no more res-integra. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others1 had an occasion to
consider similar issue. It will be relevant to refer to the
following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court :-
"...........It is one thing to say that the expression "in
1 (2004) 9 SCC 481
26-WP-11758-2016.doc
relation to that State" occurring in Article 342 of the
Constitution of India should be given an effective or
proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a
tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in
one State after consultation with the Governor for the
purpose of the Constitution may not get the same
benefit in another State whose Governor has not been
consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an
area is dominated by members of the same tribe
belonging to the same region which has been
bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the
same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both
the States. In other words, the question that is required
to be posed and answered would be as to whether the
members of a Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region
would continue to get the same benefits despite
bifurcation thereof in terms of the States
Reorganisation Act. With a view to find out as to
whether any particular area of the country was required
to be given protection is a matter which requires
detailed investigation having regard to the fact that
both Pandhurna in the district of Chhindwara and a
part of the area of Chandrapur at one point of time
belonged to the same region and under the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it
originally stood the tribe Halba/Halbi of that region
may be given the same protection. In a case of this
26-WP-11758-2016.doc
nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements
which constitute the input for specification may not be
totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after
reorganisation might have agreed for inclusion of the
said tribe Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled tribe in the State
of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind".
5] It could thus be seen that the Hon'ble Apex Court has
held that if prior to the re-organization of the States,
the area in which a candidate originally resides and the
area where he is migrated, were in the same State and if
the Caste/Tribe is notified as Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe in both the State, then such a
candidate cannot be denied the benefit of belonging to
that category.
6] Undisputely prior to the re-organization of the States,
both Chikodi taluka in Belgaum district and Kolhapur
were the part of State of Bombay. Only after the re-
organization, Kolhapur district has come in the State of
Maharashtra, whereas Chikodi taluka in Belgaum
district is in the State of Karnataka. A judicial note is
also taken of the fact that there is long standing
agitation by the residents of Belgaum district for their
inclusion in the State of Maharashtra.
7] In that view of the matter, we find that impugned order
is liable to be quashed and set aside. The impugned
order is therefore quashed and set aside and following
order is passed."
26-WP-11758-2016.doc
7. In this view of the matter, the Petition succeeds, and the Petition
is disposed of in the following terms:-
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) It is held and declared that the Petitioner belongs to
Chambar Scheduled Caste.
(iii) The Respondent No.2 - Committee is directed to issue the
"Caste Validity Certificate" to the Petitioner within a period
of six (6) weeks from today. All consequential benefits shall
follow.
(iv) On production of the "Validity Certificate" before the
employer, all consequential benefits on the strength of said
Certificate be granted expeditiously.
8. With these observations, Writ Petition stands disposed of.
9. Pending Applications, if any, also disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
