Bhumika Ravindra Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 December, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Bhumika Ravindra Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 December, 2025

Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi

2025:BHC-AUG:33539-DB

WP-717-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 717 OF 2021

Kum. Bhumika D/o Ravindra Koli,
Age : 19 Years, Occ. : Student,
R/o Padalde (Bk), Tq. Shahada,
District Dhule. ... PETITIONER

...VERSUS...

1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar
Division, Nandurbar, through
its Member Secretary.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Shahada, District Dhule.

4. The Director,
Medidcal Education and Research,
Govt. Dental College and Hospital
Building, St. Goerge's Hospital
Compound, Near V. T.
Mumbai, Maharashtra 400 001.

5. The Competent Authority and
Commissioner, State Common
Entrance Test Cell, Excelsior
Theater Building, AK Nayak Marg,
Azad Maidan, Fort, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400 001. ... RESPONDENTS

komal kamble 1/18
WP-717-2021.odt

_______________________________________________________________
• Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat, Advocate for the Petitioner
• Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / State
• Adv. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for the sole Respondent No. 5
_______________________________________________________________

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, JJ.

RESERVED ON : NOVEMBER 04, 2025

PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 04, 2025

J U D G M E N T [Per Vaishali Patil - Jadhav, J.] :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with the consent of the parties.

2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, read with the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and Rules of

2003, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.11.2020 passed

by respondent no. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee

(hereinafter "the Committee"), whereby it has refused to validate her

'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe Certificate and directed it to be confiscated

and cancelled, in a proceeding under that Act.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that

there are pre-constitutional entries in school admission register and
komal kamble 2/18
WP-717-2021.odt

birth and death's register maintained in the ordinary course, describing

the petitioner's forefathers as 'Dhor Koli', 'Koli Dhor' and 'Tokre Koli'.

Petitioner has produced coloured photocopies of all the pre-

constitutional entries from the Z.P. School and birth and death register

of Tahsil Office, Shahada. Respondent-Committee has discarded these

entries on the basis of recommendation in the vigilance report about

there being interpolation of pages in the school register as well as in the

birth and death register maintained in Tahsil Office. It is urged that

interpolated pages are in different handwriting and different ink.

According to the learned advocate, petitioner cannot assign any reason

for such interpolation, as these documents were in custody of

Government Office. According to him, none of the members of

petitioner's family or his blood rein were serving or had any direct or

indirect role in maintaining the entries. As such he would urge that no

malice can be attributed to him. He has relied on the judgment of

Manisha D/o Madhavrao Wantekar Vs. The State of Maharashtra And

Others; in Writ Petition No.13162 of 2023, decided on 15.01.2024 and

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C)No.27410 of 2024.

Learned advocate would further submit that there are pre-

constitutional entries of the year 1912, 1915, 1930, 1947 and 1950,

which have more evidentiary value. In this background, the Committee

ought to have validated the tribe claim of the petitioner as the pre-

komal kamble 3/18
WP-717-2021.odt

constitutional entries have more probative value, as has been held in

various judgments.

4. He would submit that though 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli'

sound different, they are covered under one and the same entry at Sr.

No. 28 of the Presidential Order. According to him, observations made

in Samriddhi Yogesh Savale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ; in

Writ Petition No. 1209 of 2022, decided on 20.07.2024 are worth

referring to. This Court has expressly held therein that if the legislature

in its wisdom has put 'Koli Dhor' and 'Tokre Koli' in the same entry, the

claim 'Tokre Koli' cannot be treated as inconsistent with that of 'Koli

Dhor'.

5. Learned advocate would then submit that even the

notification issued under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

relating to Section 36 and 36-A includes the tribal area of Nandurbar,

Dhule District and the communities which are mentioned in the

notification also mention Koli Dhor. In the revenue record produced by

the petitioner there is mention of land being granted under Section 36

and 36-A which could have occurred only because the petitioner's

ancestors were granted the lands as tribals. This fact has been

komal kamble 4/18
WP-717-2021.odt

overlooked by the Committee without assigning any reason. He,

therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition.

6. Learned AGP would support the impugned order. She

would submit that though the petitioner has been relying upon pre-

constitutional record, the caste therein is recorded as 'Koli Dhor', 'Dhor

Koli' and 'Hindu Tokre Koli' is not in consistence with the claim of

petitioner of 'Tokre Koli'. The Committee found interpolation in the

entry of petitioner's cousin grandfather, namely, Ratan Baap Dhanji

Muka in the extract of birth and death register wherein name "Ratan" is

found in different handwriting and ink. She would point out that birth

entry of 1930 of cousin grandfather, namely, Natthu Manga Bap Sukha

Aakhadmal, wherein caste is mentioned as Dhor Koli but the first 3

pages are inserted recently and handwriting is different. Birth entry of

04.07.1947 of Girija, petitioner's father's paternal aunt is Koli Dhor but

the word "Girija" is written in different ink and hand writing and that

Marathi alphabet "र" is added subsequently in Caste column wherein

caste is mentioned as Koli Dhor. Entry in school Admission register of

petitioner's great-grand father, namely, Manga Muka Koli is of the year

04.05.1912 (wrongly mentioned as 01.08.1927 in the judgment of

Scrutiny Committee), wherein caste is mentioned as Dhor Koli but the

page of the entry has been inserted recently and is in different

komal kamble 5/18
WP-717-2021.odt

handwriting. She would point out that the school admission register of

cousin grandfather, namely, Tukaram Manga Koli of the year 1950,

wherein caste is mentioned as Tokre Koli, but the name of grandfather

is not there in genealogy and also that three pages are inserted

subsequently and are in different handwriting. She would further point

out that petitioner's cousin paternal aunt's caste in school admission

year 1912, 1915, 1930 are of Koli Dhor.

7. Learned AGP would rely on order passed in Writ Petition

No.402 of 2022 in the case of Kiran Kailas Nikam Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and Others and urges to take action under Section 340 of

Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for inserting new pages, which are in

different handwriting and ink in school admission register and birth

extract register. She would further rely on judgment of Ganesh Narayan

Koli (Bagul) Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition

No.5299 of 2024 passed on 08.04.2025 for the purpose of showing

consequence of interpolation in birth and death register.

8. Learned AGP relied on para 36 of the judgment in the case

of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and others , (2001) 1 SCC 4, para 30

of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal ,

komal kamble 6/18
WP-717-2021.odt

(2006) 4 SCC 98 and submitted that the Court in exercise of the powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot indulge into any

enquiry. The petitioner cannot take advantage merely because both the

tribes Koli Dhor and Tokre Koli appear at the same serial number of the

notification.

9. She would further submit that no fault can be found with

the Committee in discarding pre-constitutional documentary evidence

as there is interpolation and it is in different handwriting and ink. The

observations of the Committee are based on correct and plausible

appreciation of evidence before it. She prayed for dismissal of the

petition.

10. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the

original record with the assistance of the AGP. It is necessary to note

that all the pre-constitutional documents are discarded by the

Committee on the ground of interpolation. The Committee has not

doubted the genuineness of the post-Independence Tokre Koli entries.

The observations of the Committee are based on the Vigilance Cell

Report, which is based on the following documentary evidence relied by

the Committee in the impugned order:-

komal kamble 7/18
WP-717-2021.odt

Sr. Name of Name of Document Holder Blood Relation Record of Date of
No. Document with Applicant Caste/Tribe Admission/
Registration
1 Birth Register Ratan Baap Dhanji Muka Cousin Koli Dhor 30.11.1915
Grandfather
2 Birth Register Natthu Manga Baap Suka Cousin Koli Dhor 07.01.1930
Akhadmal Grandfather
The Vigilance Committee after verifying the evidence has observed that the said entries are in
different handwriting and in different ink.
3 Birth Register Gunti Girija Mangalu Muka Father's Aunt Koli Dhor 04.07.1947
4 School Manga Muka Koli Great Dhor Koli 01.08.1927
General Grandfather
Register
The Vigilance Committee after verifying the evidence has observed that the entries appear to be
newly written in a different handwriting and the pages are inserted in the register later on.
5 School Tukaram Manga Koli Cousin Tokare Koli 02.03.1950
General Grandfather
Register
The Vigilance Committee after verifying the evidence has observed that the pages 1 to 3 of the
register appear to be newly written in a different handwriting.
6 School Ahilyabai Baap Manga Koli Father's Aunt Hindu 01.06.1952
General Tokare Koli
Register
7 Mutation Mangalu Muka Koli and Great -
Entry Others Grandfather
8 Mutation Ratan Dhanji, Mangalu Great - 1963-64
Entry Muka and Others Granfather
and Cousin
Grandfather
9 School Ravindra Bhanudas Koli Father Hindu Koli 06.06.1977
General (Tokre)
Register
10 School Arunkumar Bhanudas Koli Uncle Hindu 12.06.1980
General Tokre Koli
Register
11 School Pravinkumar Bhanudas Uncle Hindu 03.06.1981
General Koli Tokre Koli
Register
12 School Sachin Sudam Koli Cousin Brother Hindu 16.06.1993
General Tokre Koli
Register
13 School Riya Pravin Koli Cousin Sister Hindu 30.06.2003
General Tokre Koli
Register
14 School Bhumika Ravindra Koli Applicant Hindu 16.06.2008
General Tokre Koli
Register
15 7/12 Extract Bhanudas Manga Koli Grandfather - 2014-15

11. The above chart shows that, the pre-constitutional entries

from the school admission register and birth and death register of

petitioner's cousin grandfather, paternal aunt of father, great-grand

father were Koli Dhor, the record of her father's aunt of 1952 is Hindu

komal kamble 8/18
WP-717-2021.odt

Tokre Koli, but the Committee has discarded this evidence on the basis

of Vigilance Committee report, wherein it is observed that there is

interpolation in all these entries.

12. The Committee has refused the Entry No.1 in the chart

which is the entry in birth and death register of cousin grandfather

Ratan Baap Dhanji Muka giving the reason that the name Ratan is

written in different handwriting and ink. We have perused the original

as "Baap Ratan Dhanji Muka" and subsequently, all the entries are

written in this fashion without mentioning the name of the person

whose birth entry is being made. The name of person in respect of

whom the entry is being made appears to be added subsequently, not

only in case of petitioner's cousin grandfather but this is observed in

respect of all the entries made in the entire register for the simple

reason that the names must have been informed to the authorities after

the person being named and for this reason, we do not find that there is

any interpolation in respect of Entry No.1.

13. Entry No's. 2, 4 and 5 are discarded by the Committee for

the reason that these pages appear to be inserted subsequently as the

handwriting and the ink appears to be different than the pages before

komal kamble 9/18
WP-717-2021.odt

and after the pages of these entries in the register. We have scrutinized

the original birth and death register as well as the school admission

different handwriting in different ink is found as different persons

holding the charge of post in public office authored the entries at

different times.

14. The Committee has discarded Entry No. 3 of the petitioner's

father's paternal aunt, wherein the Committee found that in the birth

and death register name "Girija" is in different hand writing and ink

and alphabet "र" in Koli Dhor appears in different ink and handwriting.

We have scrutinized the original record, wherein we find that name

"गुंती" is scribed and name Girija is being added. On the same page after

this entry there are many other entries wherein the name is scribed and

different names are written. From the above it appears that the practice

adopted in the public office is that of carrying correction in the name.

As such, same cannot be stated to be interpolation. The word " र" also

does not appear in different handwriting and ink. In respect of Entry

No.1, doubt is raised by the Committee that in the caste column the

caste is shown as 'Hindu Tokre Koli', which is of the year 1952, so it is

being made purposely only to take benefit of Scheduled Tribe.

komal kamble 10/18
WP-717-2021.odt

15. As now it is settled law that pre-constitutional record

would carry greater probative value as compared to the later period as

has been laid down in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny

and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (2012) 1 SCC 113. Para 22

of the said judgment reads as under :-

"It is manifest from the aforeextracted 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."

16. After Vigilance Cell's report was served upon the petitioner

by the Committee, the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the

same. The least that was expected of the Committee, which is a Quasi-

komal kamble 11/18
WP-717-2021.odt

Judicial body, to deal with the reply given by the petitioner to the

Vigilance Cell's report.

17. It was expected of the committee to be sensitive to the

provisions of Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act and corresponding

Section 72 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. As per the said provisions, it

is open for the Quasi-Judicial bodies, like, the respondent- Committee

to compare the handwriting and reach at a proper conclusion.

18. In light of the reasoning recorded herein above, it is

apparent that the Committee has neither taken any expert's opinion on

the issue, nor thought it fit to even record the statement of any of the

public servant, who has authored the aforesaid record or allegedly

tampered the record or who was the custodian of the same. Merely

because the Vigilance Cell has given an opinion that by itself won't bind

the Committee to reach to the said conclusion. The least that is

expected of the Quasi-Judicial body, like the respondent- Committee, is

to apply its own mind to the factual matrix, the evidence given on

record and the provisions of the Act. If we consider the scheme of

Section 8 of the Act of 2000, it casts burden on the petitioner, who is

the claimant, to establish that he belongs to a caste or tribe. If we

peruse the caste/tribe entries in regard to the blood relations of the

komal kamble 12/18
WP-717-2021.odt

petitioner, which are reflected in the tabular form reproduced in Para-

10, it is apparent that the oldest entry relates back to 1912. There is

consistency in the entry of Koli Dhor/Dhor Koli. At certain places, word

'Hindu Tokre Koli' also appears.

19. The entry 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli', is recorded at one and

the same serial number in the Constitution of India, Scheduled Tribe

Order. Once the pre and post-Independence era documents, in relation

to the blood relation of the petitioner, reflect the tribe entry of 'Koli

Dhor' and 'Tokre Koli', it has to be inferred that the petitioner has

discharged the burden, as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act. In

such an eventuality, it was for the respondent- Committee to place on

record adverse evidence, so as to discard the old pre- Constitutional era

documentary evidence, which the Committee has failed. As such, we

have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has discharged the burden

as casted on her under Section 8 of the Act of 2000.

20. In such situation it was incumbent on the part of the

Committee to seek explanation from the authorities about the alleged

interpolation, who are the custodians of the original records. For this

purpose, we can rely on the observations made in para nos. 12 to 15 in

komal kamble 13/18
WP-717-2021.odt

the case of Sayana Vs. State of Maharashtra and others , (2009) 10 SCC

268, which reads thus :-

"12. The report dated 1-12-2003 forwarded by the Police
Inspector, Vigilance Cell, nowhere mentions that the
certificate dated 17-5-1972 produced by the appellant to
establish that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe
is a forged one. The contents of the certificate dated
17-5-1972 show that the said certificate was issued on the
basis of the certificate issued by the President of
Kundalwadi Municipality. The report dated 1-12-2003 of
Police Inspector does not indicate whether the Police
Inspector had recorded the statement of the President of
the Municipality to find out whether the certificate issued
by the President was genuine or not.
13. What is relevant to notice is that in the report dated
1-12-2003 the Police Inspector has merely stated as a
matter of fact that the word "lu" was subsequently added
while recording the caste of the appellant as Mannerwarlu
in the school register. The Police Inspector has not stated
that the word "lu" was interpolated by the appellant. There
is every possibility that the word "lu" was not mentioned at
the time of recording of the caste of the appellant and on
being pointed out the correct spelling of caste, the word
"lu" was added. Addition of word "lu" subsequently would
not lead to an irresistible conclusion that the said word
was added by the appellant or at his behest.
14. It is difficult for this Court to understand as to on
which basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the
conclusion that the word "lu" was interpolated in the
register of the school more particularly when it was not so
opined by the Police Inspector who had conducted the
enquiry. Whether interpolation by addition has taken place
can be stated by a handwriting expert or by comparison of
admitted letters of a person with this disputed one. It is an
admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee had never
attempted to get an expert's opinion nor itself had
compared the disputed letters with admitted one of the
appellant.
15. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee that the word "lu" was interpolated
will have to be regarded as not based on any credible
evidence. The Police Inspector had never taken care to find
komal kamble 14/18
WP-717-2021.odt

out whether the word "lu" was subsequently added by the
school authorities or by the appellant. It was necessary for
the said officer to undertake such an exercise in view of
the specific defence of the appellant that the school record
was lying with the school authorities and he had no
opportunity whatsoever to tamper with the same."

21. Therefore, in our considered view, on the basis of Entry

Nos. 1 to 6 in the chart, the petitioner has succeeded in proving her

caste as 'Tokre Koli'.

22. The Committee has also invalidated the caste claim of the

petitioner on the ground that the pre- Constitutional caste entries

mentioned as 'Dhor Koli' at Sr. Nos. 1 to 5 in the chart are not consistent

with her caste claim of 'Tokre Koli' as the post- Constitutional entries are

of 'Tokre Koli'. The committee observed that petitioner cannot take

benefit of this inconsistency though 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli' are

found to be in the same notification no. 28. In this context, it will be

apposite to refer the observations made by Division Bench of this Court

in the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale (supra) as follows :-

"17. One need not delve deep to observe that every entry
in the constitutional order / schedule has its own sanctity
and has to be understood and applied strictly as laid down
in Milind Sharad Katware and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others; 1987 Mh.L.J. 572. Admittedly,
the tribe 'Koli' which was initially included in other
backward class, subsequently, was included in special
backward class. As against this, 'Tokre Koli' or 'Dhor Koli'
are included in entry at serial no. 28 of scheduled tribes.

komal kamble 15/18
WP-717-2021.odt

Obviously, therefore, Koli entries would be inconsistent
with the claim of 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli'.

18. ....

19. It is just possible that the person providing the
information may describe the caste as 'Koli' even without
what he meant was to describe that it with an adjective,
'Dhor' or 'Tokre'. While recording the entries 'Dhor Koli' or
'Tokre Koli' or 'Koli Dhor' he or they would do it
consciously emphasizing the adjective having a different
connotation. Therefore, though per se, the entry 'Koli' is
inconsistent with the claim of being 'Tokre Koli' or 'Dhor
Koli', when there are plentiful entries of 'Dhor Koli' or
'Tokre Koli' of the pre-constitutional period, in our
considered view, the principle of preponderance of
probabilities would apply and would substantiate the
petitioner's claim. It is not merely a question of
mathematical calculation as to how many are the
favourable entries as against the contrary entries of 'Koli'.
It would be a matter of appreciation of the circumstances
while making those entries, that too in pre-constitutional
era. Obviously, when many of the pre-constitutional entries
are of first quarter of the 20th century when the rate of
literacy must have been drastically low, even if there are
few contrary entries of 'Koli', in our considered view, not
much weight can be attached to it when simultaneously
there are plentiful favourable entries as well, of the same
period.

20. ....

21. ....

22. There is one more aspect which needs to be
emphasized in this context. A person would not derive any
additional advantage or benefit by being described as
'Tokre Koli' instead of 'Koli Dhor' or vice versa. This would
be another reason not to treat such claims to be
inconsistent. Therefore, when, as is mentioned herein-
above, there is acceptable documentary evidence of pre-
constitutional period wherein the petitioner's forefathers
were described as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Koli Dhor', the committee

komal kamble 16/18
WP-717-2021.odt

could not have refused to extend its benefits to her when
she has been claiming to be a 'Tokre Koli'.

Applying the above ratio, the Committee should not have

refused the claim on the ground that pre- Constitutional entries are

'Dhor Koli' and post- Constitutional entries are of 'Tokre Koli' and that

petitioner should not take benefit of Entry No. 28.

23. The Committee has also invalidated the caste claim of the

petitioner on the ground that petitioner has failed to prove the affinity

test. It is held in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of

Tribe Claims and others (supra) and same is reiterated in Maharashtra

Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and others in Civil Appeal No.2502/2022 that the affinity test cannot be

conclusive either way. It has been held that when the affinity test is

conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all

other material on record having probative value will have to be taken

into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste

validity claim. It has also been held that the affinity test is not a litmus

test to decide the caste claim and is not an essential part in the process

of determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

komal kamble 17/18
WP-717-2021.odt

24. For the above reasons, the impugned order passed by the

Committee is unsustainable. The Petition deserves to be allowed. Hence,

the following order:

ORDER

i.       Writ Petition is allowed.

ii.      The impugned order dated 29.11.2020 passed by Respondent

No.2 - Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The Committee is directed to issue validity certificate of "Tokre Koli, Scheduled Tribe" to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of uploading of the order.

25. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

[VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] komal kamble 18/18

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court