Judgment 1 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5897 OF 2023

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 5901 OF 2023

WRIT PETITION NO. 5897 OF 2023

Santosh Subhashrao Thakur (Wardekar)

Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired,

R/o Bypass road Mangrulpir,

Tah. Mangrulpir, District- Washim. …. PETITIONER

// VERSUS //

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal,

Through its Member-Secretary. …. RESPONDENT

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 5901 OF 2023

1)Sakshi Santosh Thakur (Wardekar),

Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student,

2)Vinay Santosh Thakur (Wardekar),

Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student,

Both R/o. Bypass road Mangrulpir,

Tah. Mangrulpir, District- Washim. …. PETITIONERS

// VERSUS //

The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal,

Through its Member-Secretary. …. RESPONDENT

2026:BHC-NAG:266-DB

Judgment 2 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. M. V. Bute, Advocate for Petitioners in both petitions.

Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for

Respondent in both petitions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM :MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE O N RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 05.01.2026

DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 09.01.2026

COMMON JUDGMENT : (Per – M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission

by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.

2. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5897/2023 is the

Father of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5901/2023, hence,

both these petitions are decided by this common judgment and

the Writ Petition No.5897/2023 is to be considered as lead

petition.

3. The Petitioners by these petitions are challenging the

orders dated 31.05.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed by the

Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby

invalidating the caste claims of the Petitioners to the ‘Thakur’

Judgment 3 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No. 44 of the Scheduled

Tribe Order, 1950.

4. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 5897/2023 submitted his

caste claim to the Respondent Committee on 16.02.2009

whereas the Petitioners in W.P. No. 5901/2023 submitted their

caste claims to the Respondent Committee on 06.08.2021. The

Respondent Committee conducted Police Vigilance inquiry and

the Police Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the Respondent

Committee on 14.03.2023 and 28.02.2023 respectively.

5. In support of their tribe claim, the Petitioners have

submitted following documents of pre-constitutional period:

Sr.

No.

Description of Document Caste Date

1Copy of School Leaving Certificate of

Father of Petitioner

Thakur30.06.1943

2Copy of School Leaving Certificate of

Grandfather of Petitioner

Thakur30.09.1917

3Copy of School Leaving Certificate of

Sanjiv Wardekar

Thakur28.06.1938

4School record of Suresh Wardekar, the

cousin grandfather of the Petitioner

Thakur01.07.1947

5Copy of School Leaving Certificate of

Pandit Kashinath Wardekar

Thakur15.06.1939

6School Leaving extract of grandfather

Narayan Ramji

Thakur03.09.1917

Judgment 4 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

7Dakhal Kharij Extract of Jagannath

Madhaorao

Thakur03.09.1917

6. The Petitioners further submitted that, apart from the

documents of pre-constitutional period, there are six validities

issued to the relatives of the Petitioners i.e. uncle Dhananjay

Sanjeev Wardekar, Janhvi Dhananjay Wardekar, Leeladhar

Jagannath wardekar, Rajendra Panditrao Wardekar and Saurabh

Rajendra Wardekar.

7. The Petitioners herein filed a Writ Petition

No.6787/2022 seeking direction to the Caste Scrutiny

Committee to decide the claim and accordingly, this Court has

issued the direction to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

8. It is worthwhile to note the submissions made by the

Petitioners that the Respondent Committee has relied on adverse

entries of “Bhat” procured in the Vigilance inquiry belonging to

strangers and ignored the genuine documents submitted by the

Petitioners. The Petitioners further submitted that one of the

ground for rejection taken by the Respondent Committee is

regarding the Affinity Test which has already been discarded by

Judgment 5 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

the Hon’ble Apex Court by observing that the Affinity test is not

a litmus test in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Saurakshan

Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC online SC 326].

9. The learned Counsel for Petitioners relied upon the

Judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.7327/2024

(Shraddha Sharad Wardekar Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal) along with one

connected matter, decided on 21.08.2025.

10. Per Contra, the Respondent Caste Scrutiny

Committee contended that, in the investigation, it is found that,

the Petitioners’ family was consistently recorded as “Bhat” or

“Kanzar Bhat” and held a high socio-economic status, which is

inconsistent with tribal characteristics of the ‘Thakur’ Scheduled

Tribe. The Respondent Committee further alleges that, the

Petitioners suppressed crucial facts, including non-tribal relatives

and sale deeds for non-tribal lands. These documents, along

with a previous Court order and police records, confirmed the

family’s non-tribal identity.

Judgment 6 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

11. The Respondent Committee further contends that,

the Petitioners failed to address the adverse vigilance report and

that validity certificates of other relatives are not applicable due

to similar suppression of facts. The Scrutiny Committee’s order

to invalidate their claims was therefore proper and legally

sound.

12. In its reply, the Respondent Caste Scrutiny

Committee has relied on the following entries of “Bhat”, which

are adverse to the claim of the Petitioners belonging to pre-

constitutional era:

Sr.

No.

Document

Type

Name Relationship

with the

petitioner

Caste Date

1Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A female

child born to

Narayan

RelativeBhat20.04.1918

2Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mouja

Madhan)

A male child

born to

Dhondya

Relative Bhat09.03.1921

2Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A male child

born to

Narayan

Relative Bhat14.04.1921

Judgment 7 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

3Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A male child

born to

Narayan Wald

Tukaram Bhat

Relative Bhat04.05.1912

4Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A female

Child born to

Shesharav

Cousin

Uncle’s Son-

in-laws aunt

Bhat30.05.1921

5Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A male Child

born to

Gulabrao vald

Balkrushna

RelativeBramha

Bhat

20.10.1930

6Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A female

Child born to

Dhondya

Wald Yadoji

Cousin

Uncle

Grandfather

’s Aunt

Bhat 01.07.1934

7School

Admission

Register

Kamal

Mahadeorao

Cousin

Uncle Son-

in-law’s

Aunt

Bhat16.04.1942

8School

Admission

Register

Kamal

Mahadeorao

Cousin

Uncle Son-

in-law’s

Aunt

Bhat04.10.1943

9Kotwal Book

Birth extract

(Mauje

Madhan)

A female

Child Shanti

born to

Tulsiram

Cousin

Uncle’s son-

in-laws aunt

Bhat20.09.1936

10School

Admission

Register

Kamal

Mahadeorao

Cousin

Uncle Son-

in-law’s

Aunt

Bhat02.07.1947

13. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at

length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance

of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the

citations relied upon by the Petitioner.

Judgment 8 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

14. For the sake of convenience, family tree is

reproduced as under :

15. It appears from the order of the Scrutiny Committee

that there are as many as 80 documents however, the documents

prior to 1950 are relevant in these 80 documents and only

remark appears that as per statement, they are certain relatives

residing at Mauja Madhan, Tah. Chandur (Bazar), District

Amravati. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not

explained how these documents are pertaining to the blood

relatives of the Petitioners. If these documents prior to 1950 are

perused, names in the documents of Mouja Madhan are not

Judgment 9 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

appearing at all in the family tree. The Scrutiny Committee

considered these documents, even in the said documents there is

no similarity in the name. It is very surprising that the Caste

Scrutiny Committee without referring to the family tree, held

that the female child born to Sheshrao who is in relation with

the Petitioners as his cousin uncle’s son-in-law’s aunt. The

documents on which the Caste Scrutiny Committee has relied, is

nothing but an attempt to reject the claims of the Petitioners

anyhow. It also appears that there is no consideration to the

documents produced by the Petitioners nor to the reply to the

show-cause notice by the Petitioners. It is specifically mentioned

that the entries from Mouja Madhan, Tah. Chandur Bazar,

District Amravati are not the person in blood relation of the

Petitioners.

16. One of the ground of rejection of the caste claim is

that there are sale deeds executed by the relatives of the

Petitioners wherein it is not mentioned that the land belongs to

Scheduled Tribe. In fact, this issue is already covered by this

Court in the Judgment of Shraddha Sharad Wardekar and

Shreyas Sharad Wardekar (supra). The documents relied on in

Judgment 10 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

the petition filed by Shraddha and Shreyas are the same

documents.

17. In all, there are 6 validity certificates issued to the

relatives of the Petitioners showing their Tribe as ‘Thakur’. The

Petitioners also placed on record the judgments in other writ

petitions, in which, the relatives of the Petitioners declared as

‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioners relied on judgment in

the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors., reported in 2010(6)

Mh.L.J. 401, wherein this Court in para 7 and 9 held as under :

“7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during

the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste

validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a

blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same

caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee

may grant such certificate without calling for

Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee

finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by

fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the

Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to

grant certificate to the applicant before it.”

“9. In the present case, we find that the committee

has disbelieved the petitioner's case that she belongs

to Kanjar Bhat after calling the school leaving

certificate of petitioner's father and noticing that the

original caste written on it was ‘Thakur’ and that was

subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat. The

Judgment 11 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

committee observed that the caste has been changed

without complying with the procedure prescribed by

Section 48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary

Education Act. In fact, the caste has been changed

on the basis of the affidavit. From the findings of the

committee it appears that the committee has

observed that the change of caste has been done

illegally. Obviously, the committee which decided the

caste claim of the petitioner's sister did not hold the

same view, otherwise it would have refused to grant

validity. In the circumstances, we are of the view that

the committee which has expressed a doubt about

the validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has

described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to

have arrived at a different conclusion. The matters

pertaining to validity of caste have a great impact on

the candidate as well as on the future generations in

many matters varying from marriage to education

and enjoyment, and therefore where a committee

has given a finding about the validity of the caste of

a candidate another committee ought not to refuse

the same status to a blood relative who applies. A

merely different view on the same facts would not

entitle the committee dealing with the subsequent

caste claim to reject it. There is, however, no doubt

as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the

view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud

it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste

validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste

claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for

cancellation of the earlier order. In this view of the

matter, we are of the view that the petition must

succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The

Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the

caste validity certificate to the petitioner.”

Judgment 12 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

18. The order of the Scrutiny Committee is running into

160 pages, however, the documents of prior to 1950 having

more probative value were not discussed and brushed aside on

erroneous reasons. The document of 1917 is the oldest one. It is

discarded only for the reason that the Committee feels that it is

suspicious. The document of 1917 pertaining to Narayan Ramji

Thakur is not discussed at all. If the documents prior to 1950 are

perused, they are of 1917, 1938, 1939 and 1947 and all the

names of the persons are appearing in the genealogy. Apart from

that, there are six validities in favour of blood relatives of the

Petitioners. So far as sale deeds are concerned, those documents

are subsequent to cut off date. There are consequences in the

Revenue Code for not taking permission of the Collector to sale

of Tribal land to non-tribal. However, non mentioning of caste in

the sale deeds, would not affect the rights of the Petitioners, as

their ancestors were ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribes entered into pre-

constitutional period.

19. This Court in the judgment of Shraddha Sharad

Wardekar and Shreyas Sharad Wardekar (supra), relied on the

judgment of Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan Vs. Scheduled Tribes

Judgment 13 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, reported in

2022(2) Mh.L.J. 136, wherein it is held that :-

“14. In the instant case, the Committee has not

relied upon the decisions in these writ petitions on

the ground of suppression of the fact that caste claim

of Vijay was rejected and the challenge to the said

order was dismissed in Writ Petition No. 447 of

2002. It is true that in subsequent petitions, there is

no reference to rejection of caste claim of Vijay or

dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002. In our

view, suppression of these facts would be material

only if the caste claim of Vijay and of the Petitioners

in Writ Petition Nos. 5104 of 2019, 2131 of 2018

and 5105 of 2019 was based on the same

documents. The impugned order does not indicate

that the caste claim of the Petitioners in the

aforestated writ petitions was based on the very

same documents relied upon by Vijay, which were

considered and rejected by the Committee. By

judgment dated 01.08.2018, the Division Bench of

this Court had dismissed a group of petitions

including the Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002. The

judgment does not mention the documents or the

other material relied by said Vijay in support of the

caste claim. In fact, a perusal of the said judgment

reveals that this Court had not adjudicated the caste

claim of Vijay independently and had not recorded

reasons for invalidating his claim. Moreover, it is on

record that the decision of this Court in the case of

Vijay Chavhan in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002 is

challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

the Apex Court has continued the interim relief

granted by this Court in favour of the Petitioner-

Vijaym Chavhan. Furthermore, the caste certificates

issued in favour of the blood relatives of the

Judgment 14 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

Petitioners have not been cancelled on the ground of

fraud. In the absence of proof of fraud or

suppression of material facts, the Committee was not

justified in discarding the previous judgments or in

rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioners only

because the claim of their paternal uncle Vijay was

discarded.”

20. This Court in the judgment of Shraddha Sharad

Wardekar and Shreyas Sharad Wardekar (supra), also relied on

the judgment of Ku. Chhaya d/o Jasvantsingh Hajari Vs. The

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claima,

Amravati and Anr., Writ Petition No.4198/2005 with other

connected matters, wherein, the question involved was - When

the pre-constitutional documents record the caste as ‘Thakur’

and those documents are genuine, whether the recourse to

affinity test is open ? The answer to this, would be that

depending on affinity, is not essential nor suitable because

historical and documentary evidence are more reliable than

affinity tests.

21. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed

reliance on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan

Judgment 15 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

Samiti (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court concluded as

under :

“36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:

(a) ..........

(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity

test cannot be conclusive either way. When an 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; and

(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a

caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of

the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe

claim in every case.”

22. In our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny

Committee has not considered the relevant material and only

relied and discussed on irrelevant evidence. Whenever the

Scrutiny Committee places reliance on certain documents

showing adverse/contra entries, it has to be established by the

Scrutiny Committee that the said documents are pertaining to

the blood relatives of the Petitioners. The reliance on the said

documents just to reject the claim of the Petitioners is not the

function of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It appears that the

Vigilance Cell procured the documents and alleged that they are

Judgment 16 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

in relation, however, there is nothing on record to establish that

they are in relation with the Petitioners. As such, so many

documents procured by the Vigilance Cell without showing how

they are in relation with the Petitioners is having no probative

value.

23. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee are patently erroneous, perverse and are

liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following

order :

(i)Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.

(ii)The impugned order dated 31.05.2023, passed in case

No. 5/ST/2009/13525, and order dated 03.07.2023,

passed in case Nos. (1) 5/502/Edu/072021/182628

and (2) 5/502/Edu/072021/182629, passed by the

Respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal are hereby quashed

and set aside.

(iii)It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that

they belong to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe.

(iv)The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby directed to

Judgment 17 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt

issue the validity certificates of “Thakur” Scheduled

Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks.

24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order

as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)

Kirtak