Suraj Laxman Aspatwad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2026:BHC-AUG:18097-DB -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 968 WRIT PETITION NO. 14575 OF 2025 Suraj Laxman Aspatwad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another ...
Mr. Deepak D. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondents/State ...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED :
21st APRIL 2026 PER COURT (Abasaheb D. Shinde J.) :- 1.
Heard.
2.
By this Petition, the petitioner takes exception to order dated 06.11.2025 passed by Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannervarlu-27', Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.
3.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, inviting the attention of this Court to the Vigilance Cell Enquiry Report in the matter of Sneha Sainath Aspath, would submit that the said Sneha Sainath Aspath, who is cousin sister of the petitioner and whose tribe claim was invalidated, had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7026 of 2023. This Court, relying on the validity certificate of the father of the present petitioner, granted conditional validity to said
-2Sneha. He, therefore urge that the Writ Petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.
4.
Per contra, learned AGP would submit that certain contra entries were noticed by the Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee as a result of which the tribe claim of the petitioner has been invalidated. He would further submit that there is variance in the surname of the petitioner with that of the validity holders. He therefore submit that the Committee has rightly invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner and therefore urge that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5.
After having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP, we find that the father of the petitioner has already received validity certificate from Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee. Relying on the validity of petitioner's father, Sneha Sainath Aspath has been granted validity certificate by this Court. 6.
In the light of the fact that there is no dispute about the relationship of the validity holder, namely Sneha Sainath Aspath with the petitioner, we find that the petitioner deserves conditional validity. Though it has been pointed out that the validity of the petitioner's father, namely Laxman Piraji Aspatwad whose validity has been relied upon by this Court while granting validity to Sneha
-3Sainath Aspath, has been decided to be reopened and show cause notice to that effect has been issued by Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee, however, we are of the view that, so long as validity granted to the father of the petitioner, namely Laxman Piraji Aspatwad, holds the field the petitioner deserves to be granted conditional validity. Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
i.
The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
ii.
Impugned order dated 06.11.2025, passed by Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannervarlu-27', Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated, is hereby quashed and set aside. iii.
Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner of belonging to 'Mannervarlu', Scheduled Tribe. The validity granted to the petitioner shall be subject to outcome of reopening proceedings initiated against Laxman Piraji Aspatwad.
iv.
The petitioner will not claim any equity.
[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]