Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devansh Mogia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 May, 2026
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688
1 WP-23177-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 6 th OF MAY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 23177 of 2024
DEVANSH MOGIA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Divakar Vyas - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Kumar Parasar - Govt. Advocate for the State.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
(i) That, the order annexure P/1 & P/2 dated 01.07.2024 and 21.06.2024 passed by respondent No.3 & 4 respectively may kindly be set aside.
(ii) That, the respondents may be direct to issue a fresh certificate under the category of Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner.
(iii) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belongs to "Mogia" caste, which is included in the list of Scheduled Tribes at Entry No.16 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that despite this settled legal position, the competent authorities have illegally denied issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificate Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 2 WP-23177-2024 to the petitioner and have passed the impugned orders in a mechanical manner without proper appreciation of facts and law. It is further submitted that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and stands concluded by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of M.P. & Others Vs. Dule Singh Solanki & Others reported in 2014(1) MPHT 331 (DB), wherein it has been categorically held that "Mogia" community is to be treated as Scheduled Tribe and not Scheduled Caste. Reliance has also been placed on the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.19657 of 2017 (Kamaralal Mogia & Others vs. State of M.P. & Others), wherein similar controversy has been decided in favour of the petitioners. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned orders be set aside and the respondents be directed to issue Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner.
Despite repeated opportunities granted by this Court, no reply has been filed by the respondents/State.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The controversy involved in the present case relates to denial of Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner. The issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. & Others Vs. Dule Singh Solanki & Others, wherein it has been held that persons belonging to "Mogia" caste are to be treated as Scheduled Tribe in light of Entry No.16 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, and there is no geographical limitation in this regard.
This Court in an identical matter i.e. Writ Petition No.19657 of 2017 (Kamaralal Mogia & Others vs. State of M.P. & Others), decided on 09.05.2025, has also taken the same view and quashed similar orders passed by the revenue authorities denying Scheduled Tribe certificate to persons belonging to "Mogia"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 3 WP-23177-2024 community. Relevant extract of the order dated 09.05.2025 reas as under:-
6. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dule Singh Solanki (supra) in paragraphs No.7 to 12 has held as under:-
"7. In the present case, the sole respondent-Dule Singh Solanki has preferred an application before the Sub Divisional Officer Revenue, Tarana for issuance of a Scheduled Tribe (ST) Category certificate in terms of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Orders, 1950 as amended from time to time and a case was registered as Case No.394-B-121/2011-12 by the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer directed the Patwari, Halka No.26, Village Makron, Tehsil Tarana District Ujjain to submit a report about the residential and social status of the sole respondent-Dule Singh Solanki. The Patwari after recording the statement of witnesses/villagers, prepared a Panchnama dated 18.12.2011 and also verified the pre-independence land records. The Patwari submitted a detailed and exhaustive report on 18.12.11 certifying the sole respondent Dule Singh Solanki to be a member of Mogia Tribe. The report of the Patwari was forwarded by the Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Tarana District Ujjain to the Sub Divisional Officer and the Sub Divisional Officer vide impugned order dated
4.1.12 has rejected the claim of the sole respondent for issuance of a Scheduled Tribe category caste certificate. A revision petition was preferred before the Collector under Section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and the same 5 has also been rejected vide order dated 30.4.12. The Amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 in respect of Madhya Pradesh includes Mogia as a Scheduled Tribe. The relevant extract of the Presidential Order is reproduced as under :-
THE FOURTH SCHEDULE (See Section 20) AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION (SCHEDULED TRIBES), ORDER, 1950 In the constitution (Schedule Tribes) Order,1950-
(a) In paragraph 2, for the figures the figures shall be substituted:
(b) In the Schedule:-
(i) for Part VIII, the following Part shall be substituted ,namely:-
PART VIII- MADHYA PRADESH
1. Agariya
2. Andh
3. Baiga
4. Bhaina
5. Bharia Bhumia, Bhunhar Bhumia, Bhumiya, Bharia, Paliha, Pando
6. Bhattra Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 4 WP-23177-2024
7. Bhil, Bhilala, Barcla, patelia
8. Bhil Mina
9. Bhanjia
10. Bir, Biyar
11. Binjhwar
12. Birhul, Birhor
13. Damor, Damaria
14. Dhanwar
15. Gadaba, Gadba
16. Gond, Arakh, Agaria, Asur,, Badi Maraia, Bada Matia, Bhatola, Bhimma, Bhata, Koilalashuta, Koliabhuti, Bhar, Bisonhorn maria, Chota Mrai, Dandami Maria, Dhuru, Dhurwam Dhoba, Dhulia, Dorla, Gaiki, Gutta, Gatti,Gaita, Gond, Gowari, Hill Marai,Kandra, Kalanga, Khatola, Koitr,m Koya, Khirwar,Khirwara, Kucha Maria, Kuchki Maria, Madia, maria, Mana, Mannewar, Moghya, Mogia, Monghya, Mudoia, Muria, Nagarchi, Nagwanshi, Ojha, Raj Gond, Sonjhari Jhareka, Thatoa, Thotya, Wade Mrai, Vade Maria, Daroi.
17. Haiba, Halbi.
8. Contention of the appellants is that Mogia is a Scheduled Caste and therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer has rightly passed the order dated 4.1.12 rejecting the claim of Dule Singh Solanki. The appellants have placed heavy reliance upon a document dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure-R/1) enclosed alongwith the reply to the writ petition,which reads as under :-
दम जाित अनुसंधान एवं वकास सं थान, म. . शासन
35. यामला ह स, भोपाल म० ० 462002 कमांक/श-अ ये/2-39/07/9291 भोपाल दनांक 26/11/02 ित, अनु वभागीय अिधकार , राज व तराना, जला उ जैन वषयः- मोिनया जाित का अनुसांिगक अनुसंधान कर जाँच करने के संबंध म ।
संदभ- आपका प मांक, यू/र डर/07/1610 दनांक 26.10.07 कृ पया संदिभत प का अवलोकन करे । करण के स ब ध म उ लेख है क मोिगया जाित के करण पर सं थान तर से अनेक बार/जानकार /अिभमत शासन को भेजा जा चुका है ।
अनुसूिचत जनजाित सूची के कमांक 16 पर गॉड जनजाित के साथ मोिगया अं कत है , जसे िन ववाद प से अनुसूिचत जनजाित माण प पाने क पा ता है । अनुसूिचत जाित क सूची म कमांक 39 पर "मोिधया" जाित अं कत है , जसे अनुसूिचत जाित का माण प पाने क पा ता है ।
इस कार म. . म दो तरह के मोिगया/मोिधया समुदाय िनवासरत है । ज ह िनयमानुसार यथा थित अनुसार जाित माण प व अ य लाभ पाने क पा ता है । करण के संबंध म अ ययन/ अनुसंधान कर प Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 5 WP-23177-2024 िनदश दे ने के िलये शासन को अवगत कराने का अनुरोध के स ब ध म उ लेख है क इस वषय पर सं थान ारा पूव म अ ययन कया जा चुका है । अ ययन ितवेदन समय, पर करण के संदभ म शासन को भेजा जा चुका है जसम मोिगया (अनुसूिचत जनजाित) तथा मोिधया (अनुसूिचत जाित म) क थित प क गई है । अतः मोिगया अनुसूिचत जनजाित एवं मोिघया अनुसूिचत जाित के स ब ध म कोई संदेह न होने के कारण सं थान ारा पुनः अनुसंधान करने क आव यकता तीत नह ं होती है । अ ययन के िन कष संल न षत ।
संचालक, आ दम जाित अनुसंधान एवं वकास सं थान, भोपाल ।"
9. This court has carefully gone through the Presidential Order as well as the letter issued by the Scheduled Tribe Research Development Institute, Bhopal and the aforesaid letter dated 26.11.2007 also makes it very clear that persons belong to Mogia are members of Scheduled Tribe as in Presidential Order Mogia is mentioned at Sr. No.16. Heavy reliance has been placed upon some research conducted by the Tribal Development Institute and this Court is of the 8 considered opinion that the research conducted by the Tribal Development Institute will certainly not supersede the Presidential Order 1950. A detailed and exhaustive enquiry took place in the matter and the revenue authorities have arrived at a conclusion that the sole respondent is a member of Mogia Tribe. The affinity test conducted in the matter establishes that the sole respondent Dule Singh Solanki is a member of Mogia Tribe. A similar situation has been dealt with in the case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribes Claims and Ors., (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 43 and the Apex Court in paragraphs 20 to 26 has held under under :-
20. The rules further stipulate that the Vigilance Officer shall personally verify and collect all the facts about the social status claimed by the applicant or his parents or guardians, as the case may be. He is also required to examine the parents or the guardians or the applicant for the purpose of verification of their tribe. It is evident that the scope of enquiry by the Vigilance Officer is broad-
based and is not confined only to the verification of documents filed by the applicant with the application or the disclosures made therein. Obviously, the enquiry, supposed to be conducted by the Vigilance Officer, would include the affinity test of the applicant to a particular tribe to which he claims to belong. In other words, an enquiry into the kinship and affinity of the applicant to a particular Scheduled Tribe is not alien to the scheme of the Act and the Rules. In fact, it is relevant and germane to the determination of social status of an applicant.
21. We are of the view that for the purpose of examining the caste claim under the Rules, the following observations of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), still hold the field:-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 6 WP-23177-2024 "13....The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of 9 the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc."
22. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim:
"(i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to postIndependence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given.
Needless to add that in the event of a 10 doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity has to be afforded to the applicant;
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernization and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as alitmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 7 WP-23177-2024 extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribes' peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim.
23. Needless to add that the burden of proving the caste claim is upon the applicant. He has to produce all the requisite documents in support of his claim. The Caste Scrutiny Committee merely performs the role of verification of the claim and therefore, can only scrutinise the documents and material produced by the applicant. In case, the material produced by the applicant does not prove his claim, the Committee cannot gather evidence on its own to prove or disprove his claim.
24. Having examined the present case on the touchstone of the aforesaid broad parameters, we are of the opinion that the claim of the appellant has not been examined properly. We feel that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in support of his claim had been lightly brushed aside by the Vigilance Officer as also by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In so far as the High Court is concerned, it has rejected the claim solely on the basis of the affinity test. It is pertinent to note that some of these documents date back to the pre-Independence era, issued to appellant's grandfather and thus, hold great probative value as there can be no reason for suppression of facts to claim a non-existent benefit to the `Halbi' Scheduled Tribe at that point of time.
25. From the documents produced by the appellant, it appears that his near paternal relatives had been regarded as belonging to the `Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The Vigilance Officer's report does not indicate that the documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim are false. It merely refers to the comments made by the Head Master with reference to the school records of appellant's father's maternal brother and his aunt, which had been alleged to be tampered with, to change the entry from Koshti Halba to Halba and nothing more.Neither the Head Master was examined, nor any further enquiry was conducted to verify the veracity of Head Master's statement. It is of some importance to note at this juncture that in similar cases, involving appellant's first cousin and his paternal uncle, the High Court, while observing nonapplication of mind by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, had decided a similar claim in their favour.
26. We are convinced that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant was not examined and appreciated in its proper perspective and the High Court laid undue stress on the affinity test. Thus, the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to cancel Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 8 WP-23177-2024 and confiscate the caste certificate as well as the decision of the High Court, affirming the said decision is untenable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the appellant deserves to be re-examined by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. For the view we have taken on facts in hand, we deem it unnecessary to refer to the decisions cited at the bar.
10. In the present case, keeping in view the judgment delivered by the apex court, the revenue authorities have verified the genuineness of the caste claim on the basis of documents and affinity test, and the claim has been turned down in a mechanical manner by the Sub Divisional Officer based upon some research conducted by the Tribal Development Institute and therefore, in light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court as the revenue authorities have held that the petitioner is a member of Mogia Tribe, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Not only this, a similar situation arose earlier also and the caste certificates were being denied to the member of Mogia Tribe certifying them to be a member of Scheduled Tribe. A circular was issued by the Naib Tehsildar, Rajgarh on 9.8.2007 stating therein that Mogia Community should be treated as Scheduled Caste and not as Scheduled Tribe. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.1.2008 has disposed of the writ petition by holding that Mogia Community in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be treated as Scheduled Tribe. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 23.1.2008 in the case of Krishanpal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. {WP No.6762/2007 (PIL)} reads as under :-
The petitioner who claims to be member of Mogia community has filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation contending that by the Constitution( Scheduled Tribes ) Order, 1950, Mogia community has been included in the entry '16' of the list relating to Madhya Pradesh as a Scheduled Tribe but by a circular dated 09.08.2007 issued by the Naib Tahsiladar, Pachore, District Rajgarh, all concerned authorities under him have been informed that 'Mogia' community has been treated as a Schedule Caste and not a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has accordingly prayed that the said circular dated 09.08.2007 issued by the Naib Tahsiladar, Pachore, District, Rajgarh be quashed.
We find that the in the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, as amended, in the list relating to Madhya Pradesh, in entry '39' the community 'Moghia' has been included as a Schedule Cast and it is perhaps for this reason that the Naib Tahsildar, Pachore has issued the circular dated 09.08.2007 saying that 'Mogia' community should be treated as Scheduled Caste and not Scheduled Tribe. But the circular has led to some confusion Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 9 WP-23177-2024 because of the fact that while 'Mogia' community has been included as Scheduled Tribe in the list of Madhya Pradesh appended to Constitution( Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, the community 'Moghia' has been included as a Scheduled Cast in the list relating to Madhya Pradesh appended to Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950.
We dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the Naib Tahsiladar, Pachore, District, Rajgarh will clarify that it is the 'Moghia' community in Madhya Pradesh which will be treated as Scheduled Caste, whereas the 'Mogia' community in Madhya Pradesh will be treated as Scheduled Tribe. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any particular order passed against him, he may move the appropriate authority. "
11. The aforesaid order of the Division Bench has been passed after dealing with the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 and it has held that Mogia community be treated as Scheduled Tribe and therefore, once it has been established that that petitioner is a member of Mogia community and is a resident of Madhya Pradesh, he has to be treated as a Scheduled Tribe and not as a Scheduled Caste, and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that no illegality/irregularity or legal infirmity is in existence in the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 24.7.13, hence, the writ appeal preferred by the appellants (State of Madhya Pradesh) being devoid of merits and substance, is accordingly dismissed.
12. The other connected writ appeals i.e. WA No.917/2013 and WA No.915/2013 are also dismissed."
7 In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench has held that the persons belonging to 'Mogia' caste are to be treated as Scheduled Tribe in light of Entry No.16 of the Presidential order, 1950 and there is no geographical limitation in respect of Entry No.16.
8. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case o f Madhuri Patil (supra) would not apply in the present case as it is applicable only to decide as to whether the caste certificate issued by the competent authority is genuine or not.
10. In light of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 17.07.2017 passed by SDO(R), Division Raghogarh District Guna and the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Additional Collector, District Guna are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to issue a proper caste certificate to the petitioners in light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench. The exercise of issuing proper caste certificate be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition No.19657 of 2017 stands allowed and disposed of."
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PMNEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:14688 10 WP-23177-2024 In the present case, the impugned orders have been passed contrary to the settled legal position and without proper application of mind. The respondents have also failed to justify their action by not filing any reply despite sufficient opportunity.
In view of the aforesaid and in light of the law laid down by this Court in State of M.P. & Others Vs. Dule Singh Solanki & Others, as followed in W.P. No.19657 of 2017 (decided on 09.05.2025), the impugned orders dated 01.07.2024 and 21.06.2024 (Annexure P/1 and P/2) are unsustainable in law and are hereby quashed and set aside.
Consequently, the respondents are directed to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner treating him as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, strictly in accordance with law and keeping in view the aforesaid binding precedent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the present writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE pwn* Signature Not Verified Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR Signing time: 5/7/2026 12:21:54 PM