ASHALU S/O POCHAM TOGARWAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS

Court: Bombay High Court
Case type: Writ Petition
Decided on: 01-04-2026

<div> 2026:BHC-NAG:5116-DB Judgment 1 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5731 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5732 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5734 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5730 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5733 OF 2018 ----- WRIT PETITION NO. 5735 OF 2018 Manohar S/o Ashalu Togarwar, Age 36 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. 4) The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Office of Dy.SP, Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS Judgment 2 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5731 OF 2018 Ashalu S/o Pocham Togarwar, Age 54 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. At/P R/o. B-2, Plot No.1103, Raunak City, Adhar Wadi, Kalyan (W) Mumbai. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. 4) The Dy. Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Gruha Nirman Bhavan, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051. 5) The General Manager, Dena Bank, C-10, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5737 OF 2018 Laxmayya S/o Chandrayya Togarwar, Age 62 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. …. PETITIONER Judgment 3 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5732 OF 2018 Mukool S/o Durgesh Togarwar, Age 25 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5734 OF 2018 Kum. Jyoti D/o Ashalu Togarwar, Age 31 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. At/P R/o. B-2, Plot No.1103, Raunak City, Adhar Wadi, Kalyan(W). …. PETITIONER Judgment 4 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5730 OF 2018 Laxman S/o Pocham Togarwar, (Since Deceased) through LR’s. 1A) Manda Wd/o Laxman Togarwar, Age 63 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. Amendment carried out as per the Hon’ble Court order dt.30.03.2026 1B) Smt. Snehal W/o Shripad Ganjiwar, Age 36 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. Bhamragad Road, Mannewar Colony, Ward No.6, Tahsil–Aheri, Allapalli, P.O. Allapalli, District Gadchiroli. …. PETITIONERS // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. Judgment 5 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt 4) The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Division No.1, Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5736 OF 2018 Kum. Aanchal D/o Ashalu Togarwar, Age 23 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. At/P R/o B-2, Plot No. 1103, Raunak City, Adhar Wadi, Kalyan (W). …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5738 OF 2018 Pocham S/o Ashalu Togarwar, Age 70 years, Occ. Agri. & Labour, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Judgment 6 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5733 OF 2018 Prajwal S/o Ashalu Togarwar, Age 16 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Village Allapalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli. Through his natural guardian Shri Ashalu Pocham Togarwar, Age 52 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Flat No.402, Tirupati Residency, Piplot, Surat (Gujrat). …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, through its Member-Secretary. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Office of SDO, Aheri, District Gadchiroli. …. RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate with Mr. Anil Golegaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. V. Narale, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents/State. Mr. A. M. Sudame, Advocate for the Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.5731/2018. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Judgment 7 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE O N RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30.03.2026 DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 01.04.2026 COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.) 1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. 2. As similar issue is involved in all the matters and they are being relatives, the matters are taken up together for consideration and finally heard at the request and consent of the parties. The Writ Petition No.5735/2018 is taken and treated as lead petition and facts and documents in the said matter has taken into consideration for the common judgment. 3. The petitioner claims that he belongs to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No.18. It is submitted that the petitioner was required to file second Writ Petition No.4095/2012, which came to be disposed of on 31.07.2013. The said petition came to be partly allowed as there was no opportunity granted to the petitioner to made out his claim. Moreover, the petitioner was present but he was shown as absent and material document which he has placed on record, the entry of 29.01.1950 showing Lachaman Ashanna as Judgment 8 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt ‘Mannewar’ in his death certificate is also not considered. In view thereof, this Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 11.07.2012. rd 4. It is further submitted that in 3 round of litigation even after observing by this Court in Writ Petition No.1216/2014 dated 13.04.2015, whereby the order of Committee dated 12.02.2014 was set aside and this Court recorded that old documents of 1938 and 1950, pertaining to entry of tribe in respect of Malla @ Pochya and Lachman Ashanna have great probative evidentiary value. These two documents rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on flimsy ground and passed the impugned order dated 25.07.2018. 5. The petitioner submits that he belongs to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe and there is a sufficient supporting and clinching documentary evidence in support of his tribe claim. The petitioner originally resident of village Allapalli, Tahsil Aheri, District Gadchiroli. There is a Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Aheri dated 14.08.1991 in favour of father of the petitioner namely Ashalu S/o Pocham Togarwar certifying that he belongs to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe. It Judgment 9 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt appears that in earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.1216/2014, this Court specifically observed that, “the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously observed that the petitioners have sought the benefit meant for ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe by fabricating a document, as there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had interpolated the extract of Admission Register in which the caste of one of the petitioners was recorded as ‘Mannepawar’. This is not a case where the initial entry was ‘Mannepawar’ and the petitioner had interpolated the document or converted the entry from ‘Mannepawar’ to ‘Mannewar’. The Scrutiny Committee was directed to decide afresh and matter was remitted back”. 6. Per contra, the respondent Committee contends that the petitioner’s tribe claim was duly verified as per Rule 12(2) through a detailed inquiry conducted by the Police Vigilance Cell including home, school and record verification. It is submitted that the Vigilance Cell found entries of ‘Mannepawar’ in the school and revenue records of the petitioner’s blood relative. The extract of Admission Register relied upon by the petitioner showed apparent interpolation. The vigilance inquiry also revealed inconsistencies in the petitioner’s statements regarding Judgment 10 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt tribal traits and customs. On this basis, the respondents contend that the petitioner does not belong to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe and had obtained the caste certificate by suppressing material facts to avail reservation benefits. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at length. Perused the record and proceedings of Caste Scrutiny Committee with the assistance of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the citations relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 8. For the sake of convenience, family tree is reproduced as under : 9. The petitioners- is produced 12 documents in support of his claim. All these documents are duly verified by the Judgment 11 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt vigilance cell. The document pertaining to Malla @ Pochya Mannewar, great great grandfather shows that he blessed with one son on 10.11.1938. The another document is in respect of cousin grandfather namely Lachaman S/o Ashanna Togarwar, the extract of death register dated 28.01.1950, there is an entry of tribe as ‘Mannewar’. There are also other entries which were duly verified by the vigilance cell except one document in respect of Shrinivas Ushalu Togarwar, there is no remark against these documents. The document at Sr. No.6 in the vigilance cell report having remark that it does not match with the family tree ( tqGr ukgh ). 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent Scrutiny Committee submitted that there are adverse entries showing caste as ‘Manewar’, ‘Mannepawar’, Manyepawar’ and ‘Manywar’ etc. There is a general observation by the Scrutiny Committee that taking benefit of similarity in the caste name, many non- tribal communities used to obtain bogus certificates. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is presupposing that the applicants are taking undue advantage and grabbing facility provided to the Scheduled Tribe by the Constitution. The oldest entry appears to be of 10.11.1938, which was duly verified by Judgment 12 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt the vigilance cell and there is no remark against this document, however the Caste Scrutiny Committee has evolved a novel reason and discarded the document on the ground that the signature on the rubber stamp does not match to the second signature. There was no reason to discard this document, nor there is any remark by vigilance cell. The Committee on its own presumed on the basis of surmises and made an absurd observation that the Local Government peoples representatives have been influenced by pressurizing the Officers and the Officers used to manipulate the record by insertion, interpolation etc. It needs to be noted here that this Court observed as discussed above, that the statement made by the Committee is erroneous, in spite of this fact, the Scrutiny Committee is bold enough to record such findings without being there any basis. 11. So far as document of 1950 in respect of Lachman S/o Ashanna Mannewar is concerned, the Scrutiny Committee discarded this document on the ground that it is written in different ink and different handwriting. In fact, there is no such remark by the vigilance cell against this document about any difference in ink or in handwriting. Moreover, the petitioner has Judgment 13 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt placed on record certified copy of document which has presumptive value that it is as per record. We have not seen any interpolation in the scan copy reproduced by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the order. The Scrutiny Committee has not taken any expert opinion. In our considered opinion, the Committee has no regard for the order passed by this Court and went on presuming and assuming that the applicants are grabbing the benefit of the Scheduled Tribe people. 12. The petitioner herein filed a detailed reply to the vigilance cell report, wherein he has contended that, “oldest document in respect of his great great grandfather Malla Wald Pochya and Lachman Ashanna are duly verified, they are oldest entries of 1938 and 1950. So far as entries of ‘Manewar’, ‘Mannepawar’, Manyepawar’ and ‘Manywar’ are concerned, there is no other caste or tribe listed in any of the reserved category list other than ‘Mannewar’ and since ‘Mannewar’ is found to be correct and proper, it is conclusive proof. He has also pointed out that ‘Mannewar’ is a small tribe having his own characteristics which belonging to South or Telgu speaking portion of Chanda district, where they mustered about 1600 persons in 1911. The name Mannewar is the derived form of Judgment 14 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt Telgu word “Mannem” meaning forest while “war” is the plural termination in Telgu. Mannewar thus signifying the people of forest”. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not appreciated the reply filed by the petitioner in its proper perspective, in fact, there is no caste like ‘Manewar’, ‘Mannepawar’, Manyepawar’ and ‘Manywar’ etc., but it is only ‘Mannewar’ caste, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe. The documents wherein such entries are there, it is nothing but the corrupted language or pronunciation or writing of the Mannewar word. 13. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Judgment in Writ Petition No. 2594 of 2018, (Satyanarayan Yellaya Gare vs. Chief Executive, Officer, Nagar Parishad, Gadchiroli and others), dated 14.01.2026, wherein this Court relying on Judgment in Nikhil s/o Sanjay Bodewar vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Tribal Welfare Department, Mumbai (Writ Petition No.1212/2019), decided on 11.03.2025, held in para 19 as under : 19. So far as contention of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that there are some entries of ‘Mannepawar’, which are adverse, however, this Judgment 15 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt issue is already decided in the matter of Nikhil s/o Sanjay Bodewar (supra), wherein the petitioner has questioned the order by which claim of the petitioner for issuance of validity of belonging to ‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected. In the said petition, the entry of Mannepawar which found to be the basis for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as that of belonging to Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. The reason for invalidating the caste claim in the present matter is also Mannepawar entries. This Court observed in the above referred judgment as under : “7. As regards the available evidence in the form of documents if appreciated, two reasons are recorded by the Committee viz. ‘Mannepawar’ entry recorded in the school record of the grandfather - Lachanna and absence of entry of the tribal land in the revenue record of land owned by the mother of the petitioner – Ushatai. As regards adverse entry of ‘Mannepawar’ is concerned, when confronted with the learned Assistant Government Pleader as to existence of ‘Mannepawer’ caste, on instructions, he has fairly conceded that there is no caste as ‘Mannepawar’ in any of the statute dealing with the caste. 8. As such, there are consistent entries of ‘Mannewar’ not only in relation to the grandfather of the petitioner but also in relation to the father of the petitioner. As such, the reasons cited by the Committee for rejection of the claim of the petitioner thereby recording a finding that the caste entry in the record of the grandfather of the petitioner is ‘Mannepawar’ would lead to negation of the claim cannot be sustained. Judgment 16 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt 10. We are equally required to be sensitive of the fact that the parties like the petitioner inherits his caste from his father. No doubt, even if the document in relation to his mother is taken into account, in absence of entry of Scheduled Tribe in the revenue record the land can be transferred to non-tribal, cannot be accepted as a basis for negating the claim of the petitioner, particularly when such document is in relation to the mother of the petitioner. The negative finding recorded by the Committee, in our opinion, has no basis in law to infer that the petitioner cannot be said to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe category when relevant rules contemplate that ‘blood relation’ has to be construed as relation from father’s side.” 14. The Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that there are consistent entries prior to cut of date i.e. 1956, showing Tribe as ‘Mannewar’ in respect of great great grandfather in the year 1938 and cousin grandfather of 1950. The reason given for discarding these documents is not at all sustainable, specifically when this Court has already considered its probative value in earlier round of litigation. 15. In view of the Judgment passed in Nikhil s/o Sanjay Bodewwar (supra), the ground of adverse entries showing Mannepawar is not open for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to discard the claim of the petitioner. So far as this Court in the Judgment 17 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt matter of Satyanarayan Yellaya Gare (supra), relied on Judgment of Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 10 SCC 268, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in para 14 and 15 held as under : “14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to on which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the word “lu” was interpolated in the register of the school more particularly when it was not so opined by the Police Inspector who had conducted the enquiry. Whether interpolation by addition has taken place can be stated by a handwriting expert or by comparison of admitted letters of a person with this disputed one. It is an admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee had never attempted to get an expert’s opinion nor itself had compared the disputed letters with admitted one of the appellant. 15. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the word “lu” was interpolated will have to be regarded as not based on any credible evidence. The Police Inspector had never taken care to find out whether the word “lu” was subsequently added by the school authorities or by the appellant. It was necessary for the said officer to undertake such an exercise in view of the specific defence of the appellant that the school record was lying with the school authorities and he had no opportunity whatsoever to tamper with the same”. 16. Thus, the contention of the Caste Scrutiny Committee that there is a difference in ink and handwriting is nothing but erroneous attempt to discard the documents. The documents Judgment 18 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt pertaining to year 1938 and 1950, those are certified copies having great presumptive value and its presumption will remain till its rebuttal. However, there is nothing on record to rebut such presumption. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has not placed anything on record to show that there is any caste ‘Mannepawar’ is in existence. Moreover, the oldest entries are showing ‘Mannewar’, therefore, the old entries are prevailed over the subsequent entries. 17. We have perused the original record and document, in the first place it is a Xerox copy of the document, therefore, there is no question of noting any difference in ink. Moreover, the observation of the Committee that two entries having difference in ink and handwriting are of same day is also incorrect as first entry is of 28.01.1950 and second entry is of dated 29.01.1950. 18. Admittedly, the caste ‘Mannewar’ has been included in the Scheduled Tribe in the year 1956. As such, the entry of 1938 and 1950 cannot be disbelieved because at the relevant time, the persons in whose respect the document is produced, Judgment 19 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt they were not aware that they are going to be enlisted as Scheduled Tribe and will get the benefits of their tribe. 19. So far as affinity test is concerned, it is well settled position of law that affinity test is not a litmus test. Moreover, the petitioners are residing in tribal area, what is held in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors., 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 919, wherein some broad parameters are laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as under : “(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post-Independence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant; (ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and Judgment 20 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribes' peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.” 20. Thus, the documentary evidence prior to cut off date produced by the petitioner in support of his claim is having great probative value and cannot be brushed aside lightly by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. There can be no reason for the suppression or misrepresentation of facts to claim non-existence benefit of being a Scheduled Tribe by that point of time. 21. As such, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is untenable. In fact, the Caste Scrutiny Committee bent upon to discard the validity to the petitioner, though there is a Judgment of this Court holding earlier Committee’s decision as erroneous. Hence, the order passed by the respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee is not only erroneous but perverse Judgment 21 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt rd and untenable in law. It needs to be noted here that it is 3 round of litigation and in our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny Committee just for the sake of invalidation, cannot invalidated the genuine claim of the petitioner. 22. In view of that, we are inclined to allow the petition and pass the following order : (i) All the Writ Petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 25.07.2018, passed in case No.(1) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ II @21@33@2003&04 , (2) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ I @721@33@2013 , (3) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ III @74@33@2014 , (4) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ III @773@33@2013 , (5) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ I @92@33@2017 , & (6) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ III @1374@33@2013 , and also the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 passed in case Nos. (1) III , lvk@vtizrl@xM@ @504@33@2013 (2) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ I @359@33@2012 & (3) lvk@vtizrl@xM@ I @405@33@2013 , passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli are hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that they belong to “Mannewar” Scheduled Tribe. Judgment 22 J-WP No.5735.2018 & Ors..odt (iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli, is hereby directed to issue the validity certificates of “Mannewar” Scheduled Tribe to all the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks. 23. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Kirtak Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/04/2026 18:21:17</div>