Bombay High Court
Prakash S/O Santosh Lande vs The Honble State Minister (Revenue), ... on 22 December, 2025
Author: M.S. Jawalkar
Bench: M.S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:14822
1 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2579 OF 2024
Anil s/o Sakharam Chavhan, age : 50 years,
Occ. Service, R/o Sambhaji Nagar, Ward
no.15, Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim.
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Sai Uttam Vila, House No.3,
Near Rangoli Ground, Shastri Nagar,
Yavatmal, through its vice Chairman/Jt.
Commissioner.
2. Municipal Council, Mangrulpir, Dist.
Washim, Through its Chief Officer.
... RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Shri A.P. Kalmegh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.K. Pathan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent
no.1.
Ms Hemlata Jaipurkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 07.07.2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Pravin S. Patil, J.)
Heard. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.
3. The petitioner, who claims to be from the caste of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, which is recognized at Serial No.44 in the list of Scheduled Tribe notification, received caste certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe dated 26.07.2013 from the Sub Divisional Officer, Mangrulpir, Dist. Washim.
4. The Petitioner is working as Watchman at respondent no.2 Municipal Council, Mangrulpir since 07.08.1996. His proposal for verification of caste certificate was forwarded on 24.09.2013 to the respondent no. 1 Caste Scrutiny Committee.
5. In the present case, by the impugned order dated 28.02.2024, respondent no.1 the Committee rejected the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove the pre- constitutional era documents of his ancestral and further failed to establish his socio-cultural affinity before the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that while referring the caste claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee he has referred the pre-
3 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt constitutional era documents, which according to him clearly establishes that his forefather belongs to caste Thakur. The same were referred by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, respondent no.1 the Committee issued show cause notice dated 30.01.2024. In response to the same, the petitioner filed his written submission. It is also seen that the petitioner to support his caste claim again filed some more documents before the Committee then again the Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell. After verification of the additional documents produced by the petitioner, the Vigilance Cell vide its report dated 13.12.2023 by recording objections as to how the documents produced by the petitioner are not reliable to support his caste claim. Accordingly, on the report of Vigilance Cell, respondent no.1 the Committee seeks explanation from the petitioner.
7. The petitioner on 12.02.2024 tendered his detailed explanation and raised objections under Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short 'Rules, 2003') that unless reasons are recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, referring of such documents to the Vigilance Cell is not permissible. It is also made clear that time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India clarified that the procedure 4 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt laid down under Rules should be followed. So also, by giving every details explanation as to how documents produced by him are genuine.
8. It is the submission of the petitioner that respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the legal position as laid down in Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scurtiny Committee and ors. 2010(6) Mh.L.J.401. He stated that before the Scrutiny Committee the petitioner has relied upon the caste validity Corrected as granted in favour of nephew namely Sarthak Chavhan in Writ Petition per Court's order dated No.4792/2019, niece Shejal Arun Chavhan in Writ Petition 19.12.2025.
No.5023/2019 and cousin brother Arun Narayan Chavan in Writ Petition No.5027/2019 decided by this Court and thereby granted them caste validity certificate. According to the petitioner they being the nephew, niece, cousin brother of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee ought to have relied upon the same while considering the caste claim of the petitioner.
9. In support of the submission the petitioner has relied upon the following case laws :
1. Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra 2018 (5) All MR 975;
2. Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors. 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401;
5 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt
3. Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2023 SC 1657 ;
4. Writ Petition No.7320/2023 (Ganesh s/o Shridhar More and anr.
vs. The Vice Chairman Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal);
5. Writ Petition No.3711/2024 (Madhavi d/o Tukaram Ingle vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee).
10. Per contra, respondent no.1 the Committee strongly opposes the petition. It is stated that documents which are relied upon by the petitioner in support of tribe claim are rightly discarded by giving descriptive finding in the order. It is clarified that petitioner has submitted new documents in support of the tribe claim at the time of submission of the explanation to the Vigilance Cell report, therefore, to verify the genuineness of tribe claim, matter was again forwarded to the Vigilance Cell by recording detail order. In the said enquiry, the Vigilance Cell procured documents of Motiram Waman Wardekar, Govindrao J. Wardekar, Prashant G. Wardekar, Ganesh P. Kadam, Nandkishor Purushottam, Purushottam S. Chavan and entry of male child namely Sakharam born to Uttamrao s/o Wamanrao. The school and revenue entries of all these persons were found to be adverse, which were not ignorable. As such, it is stated that petitioner failed to establish his caste as Thakur Scheduled Tribe on the basis of pre-
6 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt independence documents. Further the petitioner failed to prove his socio cultural affinity with 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. Hence, order passed by respondent no.1 the Committee is just, proper and legal.
11. In the background of above said factual position, we have appreciated the rival submission, perused the impugned order and the documents on record as well as considered the judgments relied upon by the petitioner.
Corrected as per 12. In the present case, the Genealogical tree supplied by Court's order dated 19.12.2025 cousin brother of petitioner, which is not disputed in the matter, same is reproduced hereunder :
7 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt
13. It is further seen from the record that the petitioner in support of his caste claim tendered more than 40 documents. The relevant old entries in the name of ancestors of the petitioner are reproduced as under :
v-dz- vtZnkjk'kh ukrs nlrkost nLrkost izek.ks fnukad @ tUe fnukad 1 Okkeu foBksck Bkdwj dksroky cqd 16-03-16 ¼i.ktksck½ uDdy 2- Okkeu Bkdwj dksroky cqd 04-04-19 uDdy 3- mRRke okeujko l[kkjke dksroky cqd 05-03-45 Bkdqj ¼ckckP;k tUekph½ uDdy 4- Lk[kkjke mRRkejko Bkdwj 'kkGk lksMY;kpk 05-12-1946 ¼ckck½ nk[kyk oxZ 5 fuxZe oxZ 9 lfoZl cqd uDdy 5- mRre Bkdqj ¼nqxkZ½ ¼vkR;k½ dksroky cqd 1934 uDdy 6- Onkjdk mRrejko Bkdwj 'kkGk lksMY;kpk TkUe fnukad ¼vkR;k½ nk[kyk oxZ 1 01-07-1937 As per Court's order dtd. 8- mRRkejko okeujko Bkdwj dksroky cqd 23-02-40 ¼Jhjke dkdk½ uDdy 19.12.2025 9- 'ks"kjko mRrejko Bkdwj 'kkGklksMY;kpk tUe fnukad ¼dkdk½ nk[kyk oxZ 1@ 05-02-1940 oxZ 7@lfoZl cqd jsdkWMZ uqlkj uDdy@ tkr izek.ki= 10- Hkxoku okeu pOgk.k Bkdwj JsdkWMZ izek.ks tUe fnukad pqyr ¼vkckth½ f'k{kd ekfgrh 04-09-1904 lfoZl cqd uDdy jsdkWMZ izek.ks 11- rqdkjke mRrejko Bkdwj 'kkGklksMY;kpk 16-04-32 ¼dkdk½ nk[kyk oxZ 1 fuxZe oxZ 7 lfoZl cqd uDdy tkrhpss izek.ki= 13- Hkxoku okeu Bkdqj pqyr dksroky cqd 14-05-35 ¼vkckth½ uDdy 14- foðy Hkxoku Bkdwj ¼pqyr 'kkGk lksMY;kpk 16-03-1932 8 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt dkdk½ nk[kyk fuxZe oxZ 1 15- Ukkjk;.k Hkxoku pOgk.k Bkdwj 'kkGk lksMY;kpk tUe fnukad ¼pqyr dkdk½ nk[kyk oxZ 8 14-09-1935
14. After submitting these documents, respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee forwarded same to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell verified the documents, put their remark as to why the said documents cannot be relied upon. Accordingly, on that basis, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.01.2024 asking his explanation.
15. On 12.02.2024, the petitioner tendered his written submission to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has raised the preliminary objection stating that as per Rule 12 of the Rules, the reasons are to be recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee while referring the matter to the Vigilance Cell and further given detail explanation on the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell during their enquiry. The petitioner denied his relation with the persons of whom documents were relied upon by the Vigilance Cell. The specific request was made to consider the documents which the petitioner is relying upon because the Committee is not expected to gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim.
9 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt
16. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner in his explanation to the report of Vigilance Cell, has specifically denied the documents which were relied upon by the Vigilance Cell in Column No.B1. Particularly about the entries of School record of Prashant Govindrao Wardhekar, Ganesh Purushottam Kadam and Nandkishor Purushottam Kadam by stating that they are not at all related to his nor they are the relatives of the petitioner. Hence, entries recorded in respect of those persons should not be considered in the matter. So also in respect of one Purushottam Shriram Chavan, who is the brother of the petitioner, the petitioner made it clear that he got appointment in the Zilla Parishad, Washim from open category. Therefore, there was no reason for him to apply for caste verification and furthermore, if the brother has been appointed from the open category, it is surprising how the petitioner can be deprived from taking the benefits of the Scheduled Tribe.
17. In respect of pre-constitutional era documents of great grandfather, grandfather, uncle, etc., the petitioner has categorically made a statement that all the documents pertaining to their school entries, showing thereby school entries and other documents showing their entry as a Thakur, are obtained from the Competent Authority by following due procedure of law, and therefore, such documents cannot 10 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt be denied on the technical reasons.
18. It will be necessary to point out that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) has specifically held that in view of Rule 12(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, the application shall be forwarded to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiry.
But, in every case, as a matter of routine, Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry. As per Rule 12(2) of the Rules, only in case Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant, the documents can be referred to the Vigilance Cell. As a consequence, the Scrutiny Committee is required to pass an order recording brief reason why it is not satisfied with the documents produced by the applicant.
19. In the present case, perusal of the record clearly demonstrates the fact that there is no compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the other hand, from the perusal of the 11 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt impugned order clearly demonstrates the fact that in a very causal manner without justifying the need as of routine, the documents relied by the petitioner were referred to the Vigilance Cell. As such, it can be said that respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee has committed grave error by not considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
20. Here one should take a note that pre-constitutional era, the people are not educated and not aware about the importance of the documents, therefore, there were some minor discrepancies while preparing the documents. As such, reasons for which respondent no. 1 Committee discarded the documents is not sustainable in the eyes of law. If reasons recorded by respondent no. 1 Committee is accepted, it would amount to disregard the pre-independance documents, which are otherwise found to be genuine and valid.
21. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioner to substantiate the submission that all the documents were authentically obtained by him from the competent Authority, he categorically stated in his explanation dated 12.02.2024 before respondent no.1 Committee the source from which he has obtained the documents. Hence, we are satisfied of the fact that the documents relied by the petitioner being 12 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt pre-constitutional era, having much more probative value and should not have been rejected by respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee on technical ground.
22. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has specifically relied upon the caste validity certificate of his cousin brother, niece and nephew issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee based on the judgment delivered by this Court on merits. As such, it is submission of the petitioner that once the validity of his cousins on the same pre-constitutional documents were accepted by the respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee, there was no reason to deny the caste validity certificate to the petitioner. The petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgment in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), wherein this Court has held that if the blood relatives of the candidate from paternal side holding the validity certificate then the candidate is very much entitle for validity certificate and no further evidence is required to produce in such case. Applying the same yardstick, the petitioner is entitled for caste validity as like of his parental side relations.
23. According to the law laid down by this Court in catena of judgments, it is time and again held that the affinity test cannot be 13 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt termed as litmus test. However the respondent no.1 Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of affinity test only, rejected the caste claim of the petitioner. Hence, the manner in which the Committee has considered the documents, is certainly unsustainable in the eyes of law.
24. The Committee has further relied upon the certain sale- transactions of properties of relatives of the petitioner with the non tribal persons, wherein according to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is not recorded that the relatives of the petitioner belongs to Tribal caste. According to us, once we hold that pre-independence documents produced by the petitioner shows entry in revenue and school entry as Thakur Scheduled Tribe, there is no reason to rely on the sale transaction, where no caste is mentioned. Hence, according to us, finding recorded by respondent no. 1 Committee are not sustainable in the eyes of law.
25. From the record, it is clear that there is no dispute about the family tree or relations. The Scrutiny Committee while recording the reasons has relied upon the some documents, which are belonging to maternal side of the petitioner. As per Rule 2(f) of the Rules, which defines the blood relations, the Committee is expected to verify the blood relations from paternal side of the petitioner. However, we find that instead of relying the caste of paternal side, most of the documents 14 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt are relied of maternal side. As per the definition, the said relations cannot be termed as blood relations and accordingly, on this count also, the impugned order is not sustainable.
26. In the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Caste Scrutiny Committee without applying its mind, discarded the documents of pre-independance era, which are having more probative value. The reasons given are also not justified for discarding the documents when there are validity certificates of blood relatives placed on record. Furthermore, there is violation of the Rule 12(2) of the Rules. So also, the law laid down in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra), is also not followed in the matter.
27. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner is entitled to get the caste validity certificate of caste Thakur tribe. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order :
(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(b) Impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the respondent no.
1 Caste Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside.
(c) It is declare that the petitioner belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe which is recognized at Serial No.44 in the list of Scheduled Tribe Notification.
15 12A.J.WP.2579.2024 corrected.odt
(d) The respondent no.1 Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is directed to issue validity certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks form the date of production of this order.
28. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to cost.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Trupti Signed by: Trupti D. Agrawal Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 23/12/2025 17:02:57