BHUSHAN RAJENDRA MORE vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ANR

Judgment text excerpt

Ingale 31-wp-11071-23.odt Digitally signed by URMILA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY URMILA PRAMOD INGALE PRAMOD Date: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INGALE 2026.01.19 19:13:54 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 11071 OF 2023 Bhushan Rajendra More … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and anr. .… Respondents **** Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w Adv. Prajakta Pashte, for the Petitioner. Ms. Rupali Shinde, AGP for the Respondents No. 1 & 2-State. **** CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ. DATE : 19th JANUARY, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER M.S. KARNIK, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-State. The caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe’ has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. Inviting our attention to the impugned order, learned AGP in support of the impugned order submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has for cogent reasons invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in support of the caste claim submitted that the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in discarding the 1 Ingale 31-wp-11071-23.odt caste validity certificate issued to the Petitioner’s father on 31/08/2007 [page 83 of the Petition]. 2. We have considered the rival submissions. Having gone through the findings of the Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order, we find that the material in the form of caste validity certificate of the Petitioner’s father has been discarded on the ground that there are discrepancies in the entries relating to the caste of the Petitioner’s father when the matter was considered by the Scrutiny Committee which issued the certificate of validity to the Petitioner’s father. 3. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of Respondent No.2- Scrut