Tanmay Mahesh Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. And Ors

CNR No : HCBM010404722018

23-WP-10719-2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10719 OF 2018
Tanmay Mahesh Gaikwad
aged 18 years, Occupation : Student
Residing at Kegaon, Taluka North
Solapur, District-Solapur
]
]
]
].....Petitioner
Versus
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
].....Respondents
1. State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Pune Division, Pune
through its Member Secretary,
having its Office at Kapil Towers,
Near RTO Office, Pune-411 001,
District-Pune.
3. Indian Institute of Technology
through its Registrar,
having its office at Powai, Mumbai
.....
Adv. R. K. Mendadkar a/w Mr. Siddhant Sawai and Mr. Jagdish
Kewale, for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. G. P. a/w Smt. Gauri R. Raghuwanshi,
A.G.P., for the Respondent-State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
DATE : 15 OCTOBER 2026
Manisha
1/6
Digitally signed by
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Date: 2026.10.19
15:20:32 +0530
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 15:35:53

23-WP-10719-2018.doc
JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.]
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent
of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Heard learned
Counsel appearing for the parties.
2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing
th
and setting aside of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20
July, 2018 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune. (for short “the
Caste Scrutiny Committee”), whereby the caste claim of the
Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ was
invalidated.
3. The Petitioner claims to belong to the caste ‘Thakur
Scheduled Tribe’. The only ground on which the caste claim of the
Petitioner was invalidated was that, the Petitioner could not satisfy
the affinity test.
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted
that the father of the Petitioner was granted Caste Validity
Certificate. He relied upon the impugned Order, wherein at Page
Manisha
2/6
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 15:35:53

23-WP-10719-2018.doc
no.30 of the Petition it is clearly mentioned at Sr. No.5 of the table
which is reproduced by the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the father
of the Petitioner viz. Mahesh Eknath Gaikwad, was granted Caste
th
Validity Certificate dated 11 November, 2005. It is the contention of
the Petitioner that the cousins of the Petitioner viz. Shraddha Avinash
Gaikwad and another were also granted Caste Validity Certificate. He
also relied upon the Judgment and Order passed by this Court
rd
[Coram : M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak, JJ.] on 23 February 2026 in
Writ Petition No.8811 of 2017 wherein the Court was pleased to
allow the Petition filed by the cousins of the Petitioner viz. Shraddha
Avinash Gaikwad and another in which the Order passed by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside.
5. Learned A.G.P. submitted that they are in the process of
recalling the Order of grant of Caste Validity Certificate to the father
th
of the Petitioner viz. Mahesh Eknath Gaikwad dated 11 November,
2005.
6. We have perused the impugned Order. We have also perused
the documents relied upon by both the sides and heard the learned
Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.
Manisha
3/6
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 15:35:53

23-WP-10719-2018.doc
7. It is not in dispute that the father of the Petitioner viz.
Mahesh Eknath Gaikwad was granted Caste Validity Certificate
declaring that the father of the Petitioner belongs to the ‘Thakur
Scheduled Tribe’. The cousin uncle of the Petitioner namely Avinash
Bhanudas Gaikwad was also granted Caste Validity Certificate by the
th
Respondent No.2-Committee on 4 August 2003. Another relative of
the Petitioner viz. Sameer Bhanudas Gaikwad was granted Caste
th
Validity Certificate by the Respondent No.2-Committee on 7
September 2005. There were other relatives from the paternal side of
the Petitioner namely Sandeep Eknath Gaikwad and Mahesh Eknath
th
Gaikwad who were granted Caste Validity Certificate on 8 August
th
2003 and 11 November 2005 respectively. The cousins of the
Petitioner namely Shraddha Avinash Gaikwad was also granted the
rd
Caste Validity Certificate pursuant to the Order dated 23 February,
2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.8811 of 2017 where
one of us [M.S. Karnik J.] was a Member.
8. In light of the aforesaid factual position, the impugned Order
which is passed only on the basis of the affinity test does not stand
the legal scrutiny and hence, has to be quashed and set aside. The
Manisha
4/6
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 15:35:53

23-WP-10719-2018.doc
matter in hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
1
Samiti V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. and judgment of this
Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
2
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Ors.
9. In these premises, we are of the opinion that since the close
blood relative of the Petitioner have already been granted the Caste
Validity Certificate which are valid and subsisting as on today, the
present Petition needs to be allowed and the impugned Order needs
to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following Order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.10719 of 2018 is allowed.
8.
th
(ii) The impugned Order dated 20 July, 2018 passed by the
Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Pune Division, Pune is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue a Caste Validity
Certificate in favour of the Petitioner as belonging to the
1 (2023) 16 SCC 415
2 2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053
Manisha
5/6
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 15:35:53

23-WP-10719-2018.doc
‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ within a period of six weeks from the
date of communication of this order.
10. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
11. There shall be no order as to costs.
12. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.10719 of 2018 stands
disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha
6/6
Uploaded on - 19/10/2026 Downloaded on - 19/10/2026 15:35:53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)