Umakant Vitthalrao Dabetwar v. Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Kinwat And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:21017-DB 1 987 wp 9321-25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 987 WRIT PETITION NO. 9321 OF 2025 UMAKANT VITTHALRAO DABETWAR

VERSUS

SCHEDULE TRIBE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE KINWAT AND OTHERS ...

Mr. Gite Umesh Babanrao, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Deshmukh Yogesh P., Advocate for Respondent No.2 ....

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 07/05/2026 P. C. : ( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGP, as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2.

By this writ petition, the petitioner takes exception to the impugned order dated 30/06/2025 passed by the respondent - Scrutiny Committee, whereby the tribe claim of the petitioner, claiming to belong to the "Rajgond" Scheduled Tribe, has been invalidated.

2 987 wp 9321-25 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the genealogy prepared during the course of the vigilance cell enquiry shows that the petitioner is the son of Vitthal. Vitthal had another son, namely Waman, who has two children, namely Aniket and Vivek. He further submits that the said Aniket, who is the real nephew of the petitioner and whose tribe claim was initially invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.8498 of 2022 along with Rushikesh Waman Dabetwar. 4.

This Court, by order dated 03/10/2024, after considering the entire selfsame record, granted conditional validity to the said validity holders. He, therefore, submits that since there is no dispute regarding the relationship of the petitioner with the said validity holders, the petitioner also deserves to be granted validity. 5.

Per contra, learned AGP points out that the respondent - Scrutiny Committee noticed certain contra entries and also found that the genealogy sought to be relied upon by the petitioner did not tally. Therefore, according to him, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit from the validity certificates granted by this Court. He, therefore, urges that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6.

Considering the submissions advanced, we find that the genealogy collected during the course of the vigilance cell enquiry, and the one tendered by the petitioner, is tallying. There is no dispute regarding the relationship of the said Aniket, who is the real nephew of the petitioner and to whom this Court has granted validity. In that view of the matter, we find that the petitioner also

3 987 wp 9321-25 deserves to be granted validity. We, therefore, pass the following order:

ORDER

A) The writ petition is partly allowed.

B) The impugned order dated 30/06/2025 passed by the respondent / Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

C) The respondent / Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to 'Rajgond' scheduled Tribe immediately which shall be co-terminus with the validity of Aniket & Rushikesh.

D) The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim equities.

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ) VS Maind/-