[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vedika Gunvant Tanmane vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9548-DB
1 913 wp 2429-26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
913 WRIT PETITION NO. 2429 OF 2026
VEDIKA GUNVANT TANMANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS MEMBER
SECRETARY
...
Mr. Thorat Chandrakant R., Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State
....
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : 07/03/2026
P. C. : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.)
1. Heard.
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner takes exception to the
order dated 25/09/2025 passed by the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner, claiming to
belong to the "Kunbi" Other Backward Class, has been rejected
solely on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat,
District Nanded, could not have issued the caste certificate and
therefore, since the caste certificate has been issued by an
authority outside the territorial jurisdiction, the same cannot be
considered by the Committee. Secondly, the claim has been
rejected on the ground that since the forefathers of the petitioner
originally hail from a jurisdiction outside District Nanded, it would
be appropriate for the petitioner to submit the proposal before the
2 913 wp 2429-26
Scrutiny Committee having territorial jurisdiction over the place
where the petitioner's forefathers reside.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been residing at Village Madnapur, Taluka Mahur, District
Nanded for a long time. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, has
also issued a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner certifying
that she belongs to the "Kunbi" Other Backward Class. He further
submits that when the petitioner submitted the said caste
certificate for verification, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee
refused to decide the proposal on merits on the grounds mentioned
hereinabove. He further submits that the petitioner possesses
sufficient material to substantiate her claim of belonging to the
"Kunbi" Other Backward Class. In this regard, he invited our
attention to the documents annexed to the petition. He, therefore,
contends that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, without
affording proper opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her
claim of belonging to the "Kunbi" Other Backward Class, has
refused to decide the proposal on merits.
4. Per contra, the learned AGP submits that the petitioner ought
to have placed on record the genealogy to substantiate her
relationship with the persons whose documents are annexed to the
writ petition. He further submits that unless the petitioner places
on record a proper genealogy establishing her relationship with the
persons on whose documents she relies, the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee may not be in a position to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the question of deciding the
3 913 wp 2429-26
caste claim would arise only when the petitioner places on record
sufficient material in support of her claim. He further submits that
the documents placed on record before this Court do not form part
of the proposal submitted by the petitioner before the respondent-
Scrutiny Committee.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned AGP, we find that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee has
refused to decide the proposal submitted by the petitioner on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction and on the ground that the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Kinwat, District Nanded, had no authority to
issue the caste certificate which was submitted for verification. We
find that, in the light of the fact that the petitioner has specifically
contended that she hails from District Nanded and that the
competent authority has already issued a caste certificate in her
favour, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee could not have refused
to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner merely on the
ground relating to the authority of the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Kinwat, District Nanded as well as on the ground of territorial
jurisdiction.
6. We thus find that though the petitioner has placed certain
documents on record before this Court, the same were not
submitted along with the proposal before the respondent-Scrutiny
Committee. We are of the view that, in order to afford a fair
opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate her caste claim, the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee needs to decide the matter on
merits after considering the documents that may be placed on
4 913 wp 2429-26
record by the petitioner. We also find that unless the petitioner
places on record a proper genealogy to substantiate her
relationship with the persons whose documents are sought to be
relied upon, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee may not be in a
position to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. We, therefore,
permit the petitioner to place on record a proper genealogy along
with the documents in support of her caste claim.
7. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order.
ORDER
A) The impugned order dated 25/09/2025 passed
by the respondent- Scrutiny Committee is hereby
quashed and set aside.
B) The matter is remanded back to the respondent -
Scrutiny Committee to decide the same afresh on
merits thereby permitting the petitioner to file
genealogy and supporting documents including
the documents showing that the petitioner hails
from Nanded District.
C) We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the matter. The
respondent - Scrutiny Committee shall decide
the matter in accordance with law and on its own
merits.
D) The petitioner undertakes to appear before the
respondent - Scrutiny Committee on
18/03/2026.
5 913 wp 2429-26
E) In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case, Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee
shall make an endeavour to decide the caste
claim of the petitioner expeditiously and
preferably within a period of three months from
today.
F) With these directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. )
VS Maind/-
