COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.1624 OF 2025 Sahebrao v. The State ofMaharashtra & Ors.

Heard advocate Shri S.M. Vibhute, for the petitionerand advocate Ms. S.S. Joshi, learned AGP for the respondents/ *2* wp1624o25State.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heardfinally by consent of parties.

The petitioner has taken exception to the order dated14.01.2025 passed by respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committeeinvalidating his claim for ‘Mannervarlu’, Scheduled Tribe.

By the impugned order, respondent No.2 ScrutinyCommittee has inferred that the petitioner failed to establish hisclaim on the basis of documentary evidence as well as onaccount of failure to prove affinity with ‘Mannervarlu’ tribe.

Advocate Shri Vibhute for the petitioner has assailedthe impugned order by submitting that the Committee has failedto take into consideration vital documents on the basis of whichthe petitioner is entitled for validation of his claim. He hasvehemently submitted that the Committee has failed to considerthe purport of validity in favour of real brother of the petitioner, namely, Balaji Sayanna Poradwar and has wrongly brushed asidehis validity. He has submitted that in view of the validity infavour of the petitioner’s real brother, the Committee ought to *3* wp1624o25have validated his claim. He has also submitted that in view ofthe validity of Balaji, the reasoning of the Committee withrespect to affinity is erroneous since in any case the affinity testis not a litmus test. Thus, the entire approach of the Committee isperverse.

Per contra, advocate Ms. Joshi, learned AGP forrespondent Nos.1 and 2, has strenuously argued and justified theimpugned order. She has submitted that there are certaindocuments showing tribe as ‘Munurwad’ in the family of thepetitioner and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on thevalidity of Balaji. She has also submitted that the validity of Balaji was granted by the Committee comprising of Shri V.S.Patil as its Vice Chairman, who was found to have indulged inserious malpractices related to deciding tribe claims. She has, therefore, submitted that the validity of Balaji has to be discardedand the petitioner cannot derive its benefits.

We have considered the rival submissions andperused the papers including the original record in the matters of Balaji Sayanna Poradwar and the petitioner, which is madeavailable for our perusal. *4* wp1624o258.It is pertinent to note that the Committee hasreferred to documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner insupport of his tribe claim which contains inter alia the validitycertificates in favour of Balaji (petitioner’s real brother) and Shivaji Rajaram Totalwar (petitioner’s maternal cousin brother).The relationship of the petitioner with Balaji and Shivaji is notdisputed. The validity certificates dated 23.08.2011 in favour of Balaji and dated 15.02.2006 in favour of Shivaji, are also notdisputed. Although the objection is raised about irregularity ingrant of validity to Balaji only because the Vice Chairman of the Committee was a person who was found to have indulged incertain irregularities while deciding tribe claims at the relevanttime, however, perusal of original record of Balaji shows that onthe basis of vigilance cell enquiry report and on the strength ofdocuments filed in support of his tribe claim, the validity wasgranted to him by a reasoned order.