Bombay High Court
Abasaheb Gulabrao Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8309-DB
1 954.WP.7472-2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7472 OF 2021
Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur
Age 59 years, Occu. Nil (Retd.)
R/o. Kasare, Tq. Sakri, Dist. Dhule
At Present:Lane No. 9,
Pundliknagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharastra
Through Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai.
2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,Nandurbar Division,
Nandurbar.
3] Sant Rohidas Charmodyog &
Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd.
(An undertaking of State of Maharashtra)
Through its Managing Director,
5th Floor, Bombay Life Building,
45, Veer Nariman Road,
Mumbai-400 001.
4] Account officer, officer of the Provident Fund Commissioner,
341 Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,Sector No 37.
Third floor, Bandan (East)
Mumbai-400051. ... Respondents
******
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 14122 OF 2021
Ritesh s/o Abasaheb Thakur,
Age-32 years, Occ. Student
2 954.WP.7472-2021.doc
Presently residing at -Pundliknagar Galli No.9,
Plot No.B-21, Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad, Tq & Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
1. The State of Maharashtra
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division,
Nandurbar. Through its Member Secretary. ... Respondents
******
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3970 OF 2023
Rahul s/o Abasaheb Thakur,
Age-32 years, Occ. Student
Presently residing at -Pundliknagar Galli No.9,
Plot No.B-21, Garkheda Parisar,
Aurangabad, Tq & Dist. Aurangabad. ...Petitioner
1. The State of Maharashtra
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division,
Dhule. Through its Member Secretary. ... Respondents
******
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. P.S. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.3 in WP/7472/2021: Mr. S.D. Tambat
******
3 954.WP.7472-2021.doc
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 03.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.02.2026
JUDGMENT :( PER : ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) . Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, all these Writ Petitions are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.
2. Since, a common question of fact and the law is involved in all these three Writ Petitions, those are being decided by this common judgment.
3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 is a father whereas, the petitioners in Writ Petition No.14122 of 2021 and Writ Petition No.3970 of 2023 are his sons. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 and in Writ Petition No.14122 of 2021 are challenging the impugned orders dated 05.03.2020 and 08.12.2021 respectively passed by the respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division Nandurbar whereas, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.3970 of 2023 is challenging the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division Dhule by which the tribe claims of the petitioners of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe have been invalidated.
4. In order to avoid the repetition of the factual aspects, we 4 954.WP.7472-2021.doc propose to decide Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 as a 'Lead Petition'.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted his tribe certificate of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe issued by the competent authority for its verification to the respondent No.2/Tribe Committee. He submits that, the petitioner has submitted voluminous documents in support of his tribe claim of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe which are as follows :
Sr. Type of Student's Name Relation Caste Date of No. Docume with Admission nt Applicant 1 School Abasaheb Gulabrao Applicant Hindu 27.06.1968 record Thakur Thakur 2 School Gulab Ramchandra Father Thakur 02.05.1940 record Raje 3 School Jaywant Ramchandra Uncle Thakur 01.04.1939 record Raje 4 School Ramchandra Bhika Grandfath Thakur 01.06.1919 record Thakur er 5 School Raje Bapu Jaywantrao Cousin Hindu 21.06.1971 record Thakur 6 School Thakur Chandrakant Elder Hindu 12.06.1974 record Bharatsingh brother Thakur
6. He would submit that despite having produced oldest documents of pre-independence era having probative value, the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee discarded these documents solely on the ground that the 'Thakur' caste is also synonyms to other upper caste and therefore, it cannot be ascertained from the documents produced by the petitioner that the 'Thakur' caste which 5 954.WP.7472-2021.doc the petitioner belongs to is Scheduled Tribe. He would also submit that the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee also committed an error by giving emphasis on the affinity test to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner and therefore, urged for allowing the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order.
7. Per contra, learned AGP would submit that though the petitioner placed on record the documents as contended, however, during the vigilance cell inquiry, document pertaining to school record of petitioner's uncle viz. Yashwant Ramchandra Thakur dated 01.06.1933 showing his caste as 'Brahmbhat' was found. He therefore, submits that this contra entry has been rightly considered by the Scrutiny Committee to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. He invited attention of this Court to the documents collected during the vigilance cell enquiry which are as follows :
Sr.No. Type of Student's Name Relation Caste Date of Document with Admission Applicant 1 Birth Yahwantrao Uncle Thakur 08.11.1925 record Ramchandra Bhika 2 Birth Gulabrao Father Thakur 17.07.1934 record Ramchandra Bhika 3 School Shri. Yashwant Uncle Brahmbhat 01.06.1933 record Ramchandra Thakur 4 School Rukmini Aunt Thakur 08.03.1937 record Ramchandra Sonawane 5 School Shri. Jaywant Uncle Thakur 02.04.1939 record Ramchandra Raje 6 954.WP.7472-2021.doc 6 School Abasaheb Gulabrao Applicant Thakur 27.06.1968 record Thakur
8. Learned AGP would submit that the petitioner also failed in affinity test as he could not satisfy the aspect with regard to Anthropological traits, Ethnic linkage, Dialect as well as place of residence. He strenuously contend that if the claimant fails to produce the oldest documents of pre-independence era or if the documents produced by the claimant are found insufficient to ascertain the caste/tribe claim, the Scrutiny Committee would be justified in relying upon the affinity test. He thus, submit that the petitioner has failed in affinity test to substantiate that the petitioner belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. He therefore, urge that the Writ Petition is devoid of any substance and the same is liable to be dismissed.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGP, we find that the petitioner has placed on record the pre-independence documents i.e school record of his father pertaining to dated 02.05.1940, school record of his uncle viz.
Jaywant Ramchandra Raje dated 01.04.1939, birth record of his uncle namely Yashwant Ramchandra Bhika dated 08.11.1925 and last but not the least, the school record of his grandfather viz. Ramchandra Bhika Thakur dated 01.06.1919. In all these documents, the caste mentioned is 'Thakur'. We find that in vigilance cell enquiry, the vigilance cell did not express anything adverse about these documents. The Committee however, relied on one document dated 01.06.1933 pertaining to school record of petitioner's uncle viz. Yashwant Ramchandra Thakur dated 7 954.WP.7472-2021.doc 01.06.1933 showing his caste as 'Brahmbhat'. We find that this one adverse entry is tried to be shown as incriminating factor against the petitioner.
10. In that regard, learned counsel for the petitiioner has relied on the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29.11.2017 in the case of Veena Ashok Godse @ Veena Hemant Sonawane vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.19968 of 2017 wherein while dealing with almost identical situation, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus :
" The appellant herein belongs to 'Wani' community which falls under 'Other Backward Classes' category. The appellant has relied upon the documents issued by Zilla Parishad Primary School, Jeur (B) District Ahmednagar in the year 1922 which is a School Leaving Certificate in the name of Shankar Mahadev Godase wherein the caste of the appellant's great grandfather was mentioned as 'Hindu Wani'. The appellant has also relied upon the certificate issued by the authorities in respect of her cousin uncle, grandfather and cousin grandfather and her sister wherein the caste has been recorded as 'Wani' Merely because her grandfather subsequently in the year 1944 got his caste mentioned as 'Kulwant Wani' and accordingly father of the appellant and brothers of the appellant had also mentioned caste as 'Kulwant Wani', it does not mean that the appellant would become a member of the 'Kulwant Wani' caste. For the simple reason that they are the off springs of her great grandfather who had been recorded as belonging to 'Hindu Wani' caste in the year 1922 as per the School Leaving Certificate issued.
We may mention here that this Court in the case of Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113 in paragraph 22 has specifically held that while dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance 8 954.WP.7472-2021.doc may be placed on pre-Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of caste, as compared to post-Independence status of documents. The document furnished in respect of great grandfather is of the year 1922 and therefore it has to be relied upon. Likewise, the observation made by the High Court that as the appellant is married in a caste which is not known, may be forward class that does not hold the field."
11. We thus find that when the documents pertaining to pre- independence era of the year 1919,1925 and 1934 shows the caste of petitioner's forefathers of pertaining to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe, one subsequent entry of the year 1933 in respect of petitioner's uncle showing his caste as 'Brahmbhat' does not mean that the petitioner would become a member of said 'Brahmbhat' caste. This is for a simple reason that these earlier three documents which are in favour of the petitioner that too of pre-independence era will definitely have a higher degree of probative value than the subsequent document. We thus, find that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Veena Ashok Godse @ Veena Hemant Sonawane (supra).
12. Learned AGP also sought to contend that though the documents produced by the petitioner is showing caste as 'Thakur' that ipso facto does not mean that the petitioner belongs to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe when 'Thakur' caste is also shown in Upper Caste, however, this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region Nandurbar and others decided on 11.03.2025 in Writ Petition No.9283 of 2012 relying on the judgment of this Court in 9 954.WP.7472-2021.doc the case of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No. 11241 of 2012, has dealt with the similar issue. The relevant observations of this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra) and more particularly paragraph No.9 reads thus :
"9. .............................................................
In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.11241/2012. The coordinate bench had occasion to deal with the issue that if only Thakur is mentioned as caste in pre-constitutional document, then what would be the consequences. We reproduce paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6:
3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the impugned judgment and order. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has referred to the school record of the Petitioner's father which Committee has also referred to the death extract of the grand father of the discloses that in the year 1948, his caste was recorded as "Thakur, The Scrutiny Petitioner which shows that in the year 1947, his caste has been shown as "Thakur. The third important document referred to by the Scrutiny Committee is the service book of the Petitioner's father which shows that his caste was "Thakur. These three documents have been brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by making following observations:
As said earlier, the only caste entry as Thakur does not clarifies whether the incumbent belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or Thakur, non-tribal group. Hence, though the document is oldest, the same cannot be treated as conclusive in nature while determining the tribe claim of the applicant.
4. We fail to understand as to how the Caste Scrutiny Committee expects. the documents of the years 1947-1948 to mention as to whether the caste "Thakur" belongs to the category of Scheduled Tribe or the category of non-tribal. In the years 1947-1948, such entries could not have been made. Another finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the Petitioner could not establish his affinity to the caste and to the area. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to what is held by the Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra) in Paragraph 22. The Paragraph 22 of the
10 954.WP.7472-2021.doc said decision reads thus:
""18. 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 post Independence 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 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, modernisation 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 a litmus 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 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
11 954.WP.7472-2021.doc not be the sole criteria to reject a claim."
(Underlines added)
5. The Apex Court has held that the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence but should not be the sole criteria to reject the caste claim.
6. In the present case, three material documents which we have referred to earlier have been brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by recording reasons which are not at all justified and thus, the claim is rejected primarily on the basis of the affinity test. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra), only on the basis of the affinity test, the caste claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected."
13. It would also be apposite to refer to paragraph No.10 of the Judgment of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra) which reads thus :
"10. The present case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the coordinate bench referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (supra). Even reliance on the affinity test cannot be a sole criteria to reject the claim. The finding recorded by the Committee for discarding the pre-constitutional record is perverse which is appearing on page no.48 of the paper-book."
14. So far as the contention of learned AGP relying on the findings recorded by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee regarding various categories of Scheduled Tribe with synonymity is concerned, no doubt the Scrutiny Committee has relied on five categories of caste 'Thakur' however, we are concerned with Serial No.1 as it refers to 'Thakur' which is found Serial No.44 of the 12 954.WP.7472-2021.doc Constitutional Order. Serial Nos.2 and 3 are 'Thakar' and therefore, they are irrelevant. Serial Nos.4 and 5 refers to 'Thakur' of upper caste or some other caste.
15. We however, find that there was no occasion for either the petitioner or his forefathers to fraudulently record their caste as 'Thakur' so as to claim themselves of belonging to Scheduled Tribe 'Thakur'. In the light of documents of pre-independence era, we are of the considered view that the petitioner and his forefathers have to be treated as Scheduled Tribe 'Thakur' more so in the absence of any material to show that they belong to the upper caste 'Thakur'. We have already held that one entry showing the caste of petitioner's uncle as 'Brahmbhat', cannot discard the previous entries showing the caste of petitioner's forefathers as 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. We are therefore, of the considered view that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra).
16. Last but not the least, it is contended by learned AGP that in the light of Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2023 (16) SCC 415 as well as the subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 12.12.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., the Scrutiny Committee can take the affinity test as one of the relevant factor for 13 954.WP.7472-2021.doc invalidation of tribe claim and this exactly what has been done by the Scrutiny Committee while invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe since, petitioner has failed to satisfy the affinity test.
17. In that regard, it would be profitable to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 21 of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra).
"21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case"), the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has noted that people having the surname "Thakur" belong to both forward castes and various backward castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be right in saying that in every case, only on the basis of the surname Thakur, it cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in the Entry 44 of the Maharashtra list. However, we must note that in the case of a person having the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of entry of the name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in the land records, school or college records or any official records concerning the applicant or his ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons having the surname Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee should send the case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on the nature of the documents produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny Committee in every case should not mechanically refer the case to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry including affinity test. The reference to the Vigilance Cell can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant."
18. It is clear from the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court 14 954.WP.7472-2021.doc that it would depend on the nature of the document produced before the Scrutiny Committee for referring the matter to the vigilance cell enquiry. We have already observed that the documents pertaining to 1919,1925 and 1934 cannot be brushed aside which unequivocally shows the tribe claim of petitioner's forefathers of pertaining to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. We therefore, do not find any substance in contention of learned AGP in that regard.
19. In the light of above, we find that the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee has committed an error while passing the impugned order thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. We therefore, are inclined to allow the Writ Petition.
20. Since, we are inclined to allow the Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 in respect of father in the light of the observations made hereinabove, we find that even the Writ Petitions filed by sons of the petitioner also deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :
ORDER
i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned orders dated 05.03.2020 and 08.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division Nandurbar in 15 954.WP.7472-2021.doc Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 and Writ Petition No.14122 of 2021 respectively and the impugned order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the respondent No.2/ Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division Dhule in Writ Petition No. 3970 of 2023 are hereby quashed and set-aside.
iii) The respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar in Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 and Writ Petition No.14122 of 2021 as well as the respondent No.2/ Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule in Writ Petition No. 3970 of 2023 are hereby directed to issue validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
iv) Rule is made absolute in above terms. ( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. ) V.S.Joshi