Aditya Vishvanath Golwad v. The State of Maharashtra

High Court of Bombay · 09 Jul 2025

Ravindra V. Ghuge; Ashwin D. Bhobe

Writ Petition No. 11476 of 2025

administrative appeal_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Bombay High Court quashed the rejection of a Scheduled Tribe certificate claim due to manipulated genealogical evidence and directed a fresh detailed inquiry into the petitioner’s and his father’s claims.

Full Text

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11476 OF 2025
Aditya Vishvanath Golwad, Age: 18 years, Occ: Education, R/o. Raipur, Bhadane, Dist. Nashik – 423 104 … Petitioner

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.
(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High
Court of Judicature of Bombay)
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nashik -2, Through its Joint Commissioner, having its Office at 2nd
Floor, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan, Gadkari Chawk, Nashik – 422 002.
(Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High
Court of Judicature of Bombay.)
3. Commissioner and Competent Authority, State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra, Mumbai, 8th
Floor, New Excelsior Building, A.K.Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001
4. The Principal, Government Medical College & Hospital, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar … Respondents

...
Mr.Anandmaya Dhorde i/b. Mr.Sahil Chaudhari for the Petitioner.
Mr.A.R.Deolekar, AGP for the Respondent -State. ...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 04, 2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. On 26th August 2025, this Court [Coram: Shree Chandrashekhar (as His Lordship then was) & Aarti Sathe, JJ.] passed the following order: “ Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 10th September 2025. Learned AGP waives service for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. Permission to serve a copy of the writ petition to respondent no.3 State Common Entrance Test Cell, Maharashtra and respondent no.4 the Principal, Rajiv Gandhi Medical College and Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Hospital, Kalva, Thane, so as to appraise them that this Court is seized with the matter challenging the decision of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 25th August 2025 whereby the Committee declined to validate the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to produce the application in proforma submitted by the petitioner before Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee along with documents appended thereto.

4. On the next date of hearing, Smt.M.P.Thakur, learned AGP, shall call for original records of the case.

5. Post this matter on 10th September 2025.”

3. On 29th September 2025, we ordered as under:

“1. A detailed genealogy would be placed on record by the Petitioner, indicating those who have been granted validity certificates, including the names that have been invalidated from the paternal side. 2. The learned Advocate for the SCET Cell places on record Notice No.17 dated 26th September 2025, indicating that the last date for the admission process has been extended to 5:30 p.m. on 2nd October, 2025. The same is marked as ‘X-1’ for identification. 3. List this Petition on 1st October, 2025 for dictating orders.”

4. On 3rd October 2025, we noticed that a manipulated genealogy had been produced before us, which was marked as ‘X-2’ for identification. We, therefore, passed the following order:

“1. It was pursuant to our order dated 29/09/2025, that the Petitioner tendered a fresh genealogy. We accepted the genealogy and closed the matter on 01/10/2025, for dictating orders. However, the learned AGP sought audience in the chamber and

informed us that the genealogy tendered is not truthful. Therefore, we protected the Petitioner's admission till today, as yesterday was a holiday.

2. Today, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits, on instructions, that there are certain mistakes in the genealogy. We do not appreciate this conduct of the Petitioner. A genealogy was tendered before us marked as 'X-2', Had we trusted the genealogy, we would have ended up granting a validity certificate to the Petitioner. Now, that it is brought to our notice that the genealogy is manipulated, we must hear the parties.

3. Nevertheless, we permit the Petitioner to tender an affidavit within two days to clarify this situation.

4. The learned AGP would also tender an affidavit with regard to the factum of the genealogy as tendered to the Committee when the proposal was being considered for claim of validity certificate. Let such affidavit be filed on behalf of the Committee on or before 10th October, 2025.

5. In view of the peculiar facts of the case, we did not protect the admission of the Petitioner.

15,252 characters total

6. The Petitioner has tendered a fresh short affidavit dated 6th October 2025, along with a genealogy (Pages 127 to 130). It has been conceded before us that this genealogy, tendered as Annexure–R/1 at Page 130, was not produced before the Competent Committee by the Petitioner in support of his claim.

7. The learned AGP has tendered a compilation of genealogy charts along with an index dated 4th November, 2025 (eight pages). The same is collectively marked as ‘X-3’ for identification. The contention of the learned AGP is that, in all, fifteen genealogy charts were produced by the Petitioner and his father.

8. On the basis of the record, the Petitioner concedes that his father was granted a validity certificate by the Committee in 2002, on the basis of his maternal relatives’ documents. The learned AGP submits, on the basis of ‘X-3’, that an inquiry should be initiated against the present Petitioner as well as his father, in view of the large-scale fraud allegedly committed by both in tendering different genealogy charts.

9. The learned AGP has also tendered an affidavit on behalf of Respondent No. 2, the Research Officer in the office of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik–2, dated 13th October, 2025 (Pages 131 to 183). It is pointed out in the said affidavit, which is reproduced verbatim et literatim, as follows: “3. …… a. the Petitioner had forwarded a proposal dated July 10, 2024 to the Respondent No. 2 for verification of his tribe claim (“said Proposal”) which is annexed to the captioned Petition as Exhibit “B”. b. in the said Proposal, the Petitioner had named i. Vishwanath Pundalik Goldwad as his father; ii. Sunita Vishwanath Golwad as his mother; and iii. Gaurav Vishwanath Golwad as his brother. in the column of family members. A snippet of the aforesaid column is reproduced below: c. in support of the said Proposal, the Petitioner also provided his genealogy on an Affidavit dated May 22, 2025 (“said Affidavit No. 1”), which is as set out below: d. As per the aforesaid genealogy, the Petitioner claims to be: i. son of Vishwanath Pundalik Golwad; ii. grandson of Pundalik Bhikaji Golwad; iii. great grandson of Bhikaji Kondaji Golwad; iv. great great grandson of Kondaji Yeshu Golwad; and v. great great great grandson of Yeshu Goldwad e. Apart from the above, the Petitioner also claims that: i.Yeshu Golwad is the common ancestor ii. Yeshu Golwad had 2 sons namely Kondaji Yeshu Golwad and Khandu Yeshu Golwad. iii. his great grandfather, Bhikaji Kondaji Golwad had one brother who is Piraji Kondaji Golwad and whose:

1. son is Vishwanth Piraji Golwad; and

2. grandson is Ramnath Vishwanath Golwad. iv. his great great grandfather Kondaji Yeshu Golwad had one brother who is Khandu Yeshu Golwad and whose:

1. son is Godaji Khandu Golwad;

2. grandson is Karbhari Godaji Golwad; and

3. great grandson is Ratan Karbhari Golwad. Copy of the said Affidavit No. 1 in annexed and marked hereto as Exhibit “R-1”. f. Apart from producing the said Affidavit No. 1 at Exhibit “C” to the captioned Petition, the Petitioner has also produced: i. his father, Vishwanath Pundalik Golwad’s Mulakat Patrika dated August 7, 2002 wherein his father has inter alia specified following persons to be his paternal relatives:

1. Karbhari Godaji Golwad;

2. Vishwanath Piraji Golwad;

3. Vikram Bhagaji Golwad;

4. Gangadhar Mahadu Golwad;

5. Uttam Karbhari Golwad;

6. Ratan Karbhari Golwad; and

7. Somnath Vishwanth Golwad ii. genealogy provided by his father Vishwanath Pundalik Golwad’s to the Respondent No. 2 which is as set out below: However, for reasons best known to the Petitioner, several names of the relatives mentioned by his father not only in his Mulakat Patraika but also in aforesaid genealogy provided by his father are not at all found in genealogy provided by him in the said Affidavit No. 1. g. Moreover, the Petitioner at Exhibit D to the captioned Petition has produced a copy of 7/12 extract which according to him is in the name of his father and which as per him also shows the name of legal heirs of his grandfather being added after his demise. A study of such 7/12 extract reveals that, name of one Pundalik Bhika Golwad was recorded as land holder therein and after his demise, names of the following people have been recorded in aforesaid extract: i.Jankabai Pundalik Golwad; ii. Arjun Pundalik Golwad; iii. Maruti Pundalik Golwad; iv. Vishwanath Pundalik Golwad; v. Vitabai Rajendra Kudal; and vi. Janabai Ankush Pardhi Needless to point out that, for reasons best known to the Petitioner, names of the relatives mentioned above were not included in the genealogy provided by him in his said Affidavit No. 1. h. Furthermore, the Petitioner at Exhibit “F” to the captioned Petition, has produced the Reply dated July 23, 2025 which was given by him to the Show Cause Notice dated July 17, 2025 along with Vigilance Cell Report dated July 9, 2025 issued by the Respondent No. 2. A careful reading of the aforesaid reply would indicate that, through such reply, the Petitioner claimed that, following people have been issued a Tribe Validity Certificate: i.his father, Vishwanath Pundalik Golwad; ii. Ramnath Vishwanth Golwad; iii. Gangadhar Mahadu Golwad; iv. Varsha Gangadhar Golwad; v. Mahesh Vikram Golwad; vi. Jitendra Ratanlal Golwad; vii. Rakesh Gangadhar Golwad; and viii. Sunita Vikram Golwad. However, the Petitioner only enclosed the Tribe Validity Certificate of Gangadhar Mahadu Golvad and Mahesh Vikram Golwad with the aforesaid Reply. Needless to highlight that, yet again for reasons best known to the Petitioner, names of the relatives namely Gangadhar Mahadu Golwad, Varsha Gangadhar Golwad, Mahesh Vikram Golwad, Jitendra Ratanlal Golwad, Rakesh Gangadhar Golwad and Sunita Vikram Golwad were not included in the genealogy provided by him in his said Affidavit No. 1”.

10. In light of the above, it is apparent that the claim of the biological brother of the Petitioner’s father, namely Arjun Pundlik Golwad, was invalidated by the Committee, with reasons. He has accepted the invalidation and the order has attained finality. His biological brother, Vishwanath, who is the father of the Petitioner, was admittedly granted a validity certificate by the Committee in 2002, on the basis of maternal relatives' documents. It is now too late to direct any inquiry against the Members of the said Committee, considering the passage of 23 years, and the Committee Members have since superannuated, as per the instructions given to the learned AGP.

11. The fact remains that Vishwanath’s biological brother, Arjun, sought validation on the basis of paternal relatives, which was rejected, and the order attained finality. Per contra, his biological brother, Vishwanath, secured a validity certificate on the basis of his maternal relatives’ documents. The Petitioner before us is claiming validity on the basis of his father Vishwanath’s validity, relying on the decision of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale v. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Nagpur [2010 (6) Mh. L. J. 401: AIR 2010 (6) Bom. R. 21].

12. We also find from the latest genealogy chart, Annexure - R/1 at page no. 130, tendered by the Petitioner, that Uttam, son of Karbhai/ Karbhari, suffered invalidation. He preferred Writ Petition No. 5248 of 2022 before the Aurangabad Bench of this Court. The said Petition is pending and Uttam is yet to be granted the validity certificate. Surprisingly, Jitendra and Pratibha (siblings), the son and daughter of Ratan, who is the biological brother of Uttam, have been granted validity certificates by the Committee. Both Jitendra and Pratibha have been issued show cause notices for the reopening of their cases.

13. Deochand is son of Narayan, from the branch of Mahadu, son of Manaji. The Petitioner’s father, Vishwanath, is from the branch of Bhikaji, son of Kondaji. Jitendra and Pratibha are from the branch of Godhaji, son of Khandu. Deochand, who is from the branch of Mahadu, acquired the validity certificate. His son Mayur and daughter Komal suffered invalidation and filed Writ Petition Nos. 2875 of 2024 and 2773 of 2024, which are pending before this Court. They are yet to receive a validity certificate from this Court.

14. In the light of the above, we find the following aspects to be glaring: (a) The Petitioner’s father, Vishwanath, has received a validity certificate on the basis of maternal relatives’ documents; (b) Arjun, the biological brother of Vishwanath, relied on the paternal relatives’ documents and has suffered invalidation, and the order in his case has attained finality;

(c) The Petitioner, Aditya, is claiming validity on the basis of his father’s validity, which was obtained vide maternal relatives’ documents, despite the rejection of his biological brother Arjun’s claim, who had sought validity on the basis of paternal relatives’ documents;

(d) As the Petitioner claims that Uttam, Mayur, and Komal are his distant relatives, all three have suffered invalidation, and their respective Petitions are pending before the Bombay High Court.

15. Considering the peculiar facts discussed above, we find that the latest genealogy, Annexure–R/1 at Page No. 130, tendered by the Petitioner, along with all earlier tendered genealogy charts, need to be examined by the Committee in view of the long list of genealogy charts previously tendered by the Petitioner and his father, Gangadhar Golwad, son of Mahadu; Mahesh Golwad, son of Vikram; Deochand Golwad, son of Narayan; Mayur Golwad, son of Deochand; Komal Golwad, daughter of Deochand; Uttam Golwad, son of Karbhari; Jitendra Golwad, son of Ratan; and Pratibha, daughter of Ratan. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits, on instructions, that if this Court directs a fresh investigation into the Petitioner's case, the Petitioner is willing to cooperate and assures that his father will also cooperate. He prays for an expeditious re-hearing within a time line.

16. In our view, a detailed inquiry needs to be conducted into the claim of the Petitioner, which is based on the validity certificate obtained by his father on the basis of maternal relatives’ documents. As we find it necessary to direct a fresh investigation into the Petitioner’s claim by the Committee, considering all the genealogy charts adverted to herein above, we also find it appropriate to direct the Committee to investigate whether any fraud has been committed by the present Petitioner and his father. His father’s case should also be re-investigated by re-opening his proposal seeking validation.

17. It is for this reason, and primarily to test the claim of the Petitioner and his father, through the fresh genealogy chart (Annexure - R/1), this Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 21st August 2025, is quashed and set aside. We direct the Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into the claim of the present Petitioner and his father, since the validity certificate granted to his father is based on the documents of maternal relatives.

18. The claim (proposal) of the Petitioner is restored to the file of Respondent No. 2, the Committee. The Petitioner, who is an adult, shall appear before Respondent No. 2 on 21st November, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. He shall tender his WhatsApp number as well as his email address to the Committee, for easy correspondence between the parties. He shall render his fullest cooperation, and so will his father.

19. Let the Committee conduct a detailed investigation in the proposal of the Petitioner and the case of his father, and after considering all relevant documents and various genealogy charts, pass a reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, on or before 15th March, 2026.

20. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

Aditya Vishvanath Golwad v. The State of Maharashtra

AI Summary

Full Text

ORAL JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation