Judgment 1 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.1889 OF 2024

Shri Bhavesh Yashwant Banne,

Aged About 19 years, Occ. Student,

R/o. Dipak Chowk, Hanuman Basti,

Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Principal Secretary,

Tribal Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division,

Amravati, Through its Deputy Director

and Member Secretary, Having Office At

Irvine Chowk, Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1887 OF 2024

Ku. Sunita Manikrao Banne,

Aged About 59 years, Occ. Retired,

R/o. Dipak Chowk, Hanuman Basti,

Akola, Tq. & Dist. Akola.

...PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.The State of Maharashtra,

Through its Principal Secretary,

Tribal Development Department,

Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, 2026:BHC-NAG:2863-DB

Judgment 2 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

Amravati, Through its Deputy Director

and Member Secretary, Having Office At

Irvine Chowk, Amravati. ...RESPONDENTS

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

Mr. A.I. Sheikh, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. H.D. Futane & Ms. H.S. Dhande, AGPs for the Respondents.

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

CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR &

NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 10.02.2026

DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 18.02.2026

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

. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the

respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioners, by the above petitions, are

challenging the orders dated 10.07.2023 and 19.10.2023 passed

by the Respondent No. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Amravati (for short the “Scrutiny Committee”)

thereby invalidating the claim of the Petitioners of belonging to

‘Mannewar’ Scheduled Tribe mentioned at Sr. No. 18 of the

Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

Judgment 3 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

4. The Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions are in

relation with each other. The Petitioner in Writ Petition

No. 1887/2024 i.e. Bhavesh Yashwant Banne is the nephew of

the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1887/2024 i.e. Sunita

Manikrao Banne. Since Writ Petition No. 1889/2024 is treated

as lead Petition, the facts and contentions stated in the said

Petition are set out for adjudication of the issues involved in

both the Petitions and they are being decided by this common

judgment.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that his proposal

of tribe claim was forwarded by the College to the Respondent

No.2 Committee on 02.04.2021. In support of his tribe claim,

the Petitioner submitted the following documents of pre-

constitutional period:

Sr.

no

Document

Type

Name of

the person

Relation with

the petitioner

TribeDate/Period

1. Death

Certificate

Bhudevi

Shivanna

Mannewar

Great

Grandmother

Mannewar07.06.1936

2.Birth CertificateRatanbabu

Bijanna

Mannewae

Cousin

Grandfather

Mannewar30.10.1936

3.School leaving

certificate

Madhukar

Laxman

GrandfatherTelugu

Mannewar

20.06.1946

Judgment 4 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

4.Birth certificateBirth of a

child born

to Laxman

Balaiyya

Great

grandfather

09.02.1948

6. The family tree of the Petitioner is as under:-

7. The petitioner contended that the Vigilance Cell

relied upon an alleged birth extract of a male child born to one

Balaiyya showing the entry as “Telangi,” claiming him to be a

blood relative of the petitioner. However, this person does not

appear in the petitioner’s family tree. Another document relied

upon by the Scrutiny Committee is a school extract dated

16.06.1950 relating to one Laxman Balanna with the tribe entry

Judgment 5 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

“Telangi Dhobi.” The petitioner submits that this individual is

not his great-grandfather; rather, his great-grandfather is

Laxman Balaiyya, as clearly reflected in the family tree of the

Petitioner. Further, reliance was placed on a death extract dated

27.10.1936 of Shivanna Mard Balaiya with the tribe entry

“Telangi,” purportedly describing her as the wife of the

petitioner’s great-great-grandfather. It is specifically contended

that Shivanna Mard Balaiya does not fall within the category of

blood relatives as defined in Section 2(h), as she was born in

another family and married into the petitioner’s family.

8. It is further contended that the Vigilance Cell

procured a birth entry dated 17.06.1936 of one Balaram, born to

Balaiyya Shivayya, and another entry dated 07.06.1936 relating

to one Bhudevi, born to Shivanna alias Shivayya. On this basis,

the Enquiry Officer claimed that Balaiyya Shivayya was the

petitioner’s great-great-grandfather and held it improbable that

children could have been born to the great-great-grandfather

and great-grandfather in the same month. This finding is

specifically denied by the petitioner on the ground that Balaram

is not his relative, and more importantly, that the entry dated

Judgment 6 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

07.06.1936 pertains to the death extract of Bhudevi, who was

born to Balaiyya Shivanna.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, in support of his

contentions, placed reliance on the judgment dated 08/10/2025

passed by this Court in Writ petition No.2896 of 2024

(Mr. Prathamesh S/o Vikram Banne vs. The Scheduled Tribe

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & another).

10. As against this, the learned AGPs for the respondents

submitted that the following pre-constitutional documents were

procured by the Vigilance Cell in its enquiry, which are adverse to the

claim of the petitioner:-

Sr.

No

Document TypeName on

the

document

Relation with

the petitioner

Tribe Date

1. Birth extractA male

child born

to Balaiyya

Shivaiyya

Great

Grandfather

Telangi17.06.1936

2. Birth RecordA female

child born

to

Shivanna

Balaiyya

Wife of Great

Grandfather

Telangi27.10.1936

3.Dakhal Kharij

Extract

Sundar

Swami

Laxman

Paternal

Uncle

Telgu16.08.1941

Judgment 7 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

4.Dakhal Kharij

Extract

Shriniwas

Baliyya

Cousin

Grandfather

Telangi03.07.1942

5. Birth Record A male

child born

to Laxman

Balaiyya

GrandfatherTelgu07.02.1948

6.Dakhal Kharij

Extract

Madhukar

Laxman

Banne

Cousin Aunt

Paternal Side

Telangu

Mannew

ar

07.06.1931

7.Dakhal Kharij

Extract

Laxman

Balanna

Grand-fatherTelangi

Dhobi

16.06.1950

11. The Respondent No. 2 - Committee further relied on

certain adverse entries which were obtained by Vigilance Officer

during the course of enquiry of Ku. Sunita Manik Banne i.e. the

Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1887 of 2024. In these documents,

the tribe was found to be recorded as Telangi, Telgu, Telangi

Dhobi, Telagu Mannewar, Hindu Telagu Mannewar, and Telangu,

pertaining to the years 1936, 1941, 1942, 1948, 1949, 1950,

1951, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1975 & 1980.

12. The Respondent No. 2 – Scrutiny Committee

contended that the Petitioner did not prove his tribe claim to be

'Mannewar' and on the basis of the documents procured by the

Vigilance Cell showing tribe as Telangi' or 'Telgu', the tribe claim

of the Petitioner was rightly rejected by the Respondent No. 2 -

Judgment 8 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

Committee. Hence, the learned AGPs pray for dismissal of the

Writ Petitions.

13. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at

length. Perused the impugned order, record and proceedings of

the Caste Scrutiny Committee and considered the citation relied

on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners.

14. The petitioner, in support of his contentions,

produced the death extract of Bhudevi Shivanna Mannewar

dated 07/06/1936 (Page-123), a birth certificate of Ratanbabu

Bijanna Atmaram showing entry of 'Mannewar' dated

30/10/1936(page-125). He has also placed on record the

extract of school leaving certificate of Madhukar Laxman Banne

showing entry as "Telgu Mannewar' dated 20/06/1946.

15. The Vigilance Cell procured some documents

showing entry ‘Telangi’, ‘Telgu', 'Telgu Mannewar'. Out of these

documents, 1936 document pertaining to Shivamma w/o

Balaiyya Telangi is in respect of wife of great grandfather of

Judgment 9 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

the Petitioner, which cannot be taken into consideration by the

Scrutiny Committee. Similarly, the entries in the documents at

Sr. Nos. 3 and 8 also cannot be considered by the Scrutiny

Committee as they are not in relation with the Petitioner from

the paternal side. It appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee,

relying only on the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell,

wrongly invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner.

16. As now discussed above, in the documents produced

by the petitioner, specifically the birth extracts of Ratanbabu

Mannewar and Ratanbabu Bijanna Atmaram of 1936 and 1942

respectively, there is entry of 'Mannewar'. The Scrutiny

Committee has only discussed the documents procured by the

Vigilance Cell. In the said documents also, 2-3 entries are of

female members, which cannot be relatives in terms of Rule 2(h)

of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-

notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward

Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance

and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.

Judgment 10 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

17. This Court in Writ Petition No. 6341/2022 (Khushali

d/o Devidas Lade Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., has dealt

with the similar issue as in the present case. In the said

judgment, in Paragraph Nos. 11, 12 & 13, it is held as under:

"11. The fact remains that "Telugu' is not identified as a

caste in any of the statutory provisions or otherwise. "Telugu'

is the official language spoken by the people like petitioner's

family members and declared in the Eighth Schedule

appended to the Constitution of India. Similarly, Manyawar',

Telegu any of the public documents which can be said to be

other than the scheduled tribes. In such an eventuality, the

observations of the Committee that the documents contain

tribe entries as Telugu, Telugu Manyawar and Manyawar'

cannot be relied on for the purposes of rejecting the tribe

claim of the petitioner.

12. Rather the entries in the documents which are relied

upon by the petitioner duly depicts that the same pertain to

the pre-Constitutional era and it has more evidentiary and

probative value. All the documents produced by the petitioner

point out that her ancestors were belonging to 'Mannewar'

and as such the said fact fortifies her claim of belonging to

'Mannewar' Scheduled Tribe. As such, the old document of

1934 can be safely relied on for the purposes of grant of tribe

validity certificate in favour of the petitioner.

13. Apart from above, though a finding is recorded by the

Committee that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the affinity

test, the fact remains that the satisfaction of the affinity test

can be considered to be in aid for the purposes of further

confirmation of the claim for grant of validity. The Apex Court

had an occasion to consider the reliance to be placed by the

Committee in the matter of grant of validity certificate based

on the affinity test."

Judgment 11 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

18. Similar view has already been taken by this Court in

the judgment in Writ Petition No.360 of 2022 (Surendra

Murlidhar Kopulwar v. The State of Maharashtra and others)

dated 19/10/2022. By relying on the judgment in the case of

Shri Anil Ramdas Mede v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (4) ALL

MR 639, this Court held in Paragraph No. 3 as under:

"3. So far as the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee

that there are confusing entries relating to the paternal side

of the petitioner in the pre-constitutional documents, we are

of the view that there is no confusion whatsoever in these

entries. All these entries, particularly the entries of the dates

of 10-7-1924 and 20-10-1934, clearly show that the paternal

aunt and the cousin grandfather of the petitioner belonged to

'Manewar' community, which has been later on declared to be

a Scheduled Tribe. In some other pre-constitutional

documents, the ancestors of the petitioners have been shown

to be "Telangi" or "Telgu Manewar' or "Telgu'. It is well settled

that "Telgangi" is the region of which the community

'Manewar' is native, while "Telgu' is the language spoken by

the community 'Manewar', now the Scheduled Tribe. A useful

reference in this regard can be made to the view taken by this

Court in the case of Shri Anil Ramdas Mede Vs. State of

Maharashtra, reported in 2004(4) ALL MR 639. It then

follows that all the pre-constitutional documents on which

reliance has been placed by the petitioner reasonably and

sufficiently support the claim of the petitioner of his

belonging to 'Manewar', Scheduled Tribe. This aspect of the

matter, vital for determination of the issue involved in this

case, has been completely ignored by the Scrutiny Committee

and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Committee

is not sustainable in the eye of law."

Judgment 12 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

19. This Court in the judgment dated 24/11/2025 passed

in Writ Petition No.7256 of 2024 (Sharayu D/o Ramesh Hedaoo

vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

through its Member Secretary and Deputy Director, Dist.

Amravati), relying on the judgment of Mangesh s/o Panditrao

Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No.14111 of

2021 and other connected matters, held as under:

"21. It is one of the contention that the caste certificate was

invalidated in respect of uncle of the petitioner i.e.

Dhananjay Katole. However, he has not challenged the same.

Therefore, it has attained finality.

22. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on Mangesh s/o

Panditrao Thakur (supra), wherein, this Court held in

paragraph No. 13 as under:

"13. True it is that there is an invalidation of Jyoti

Narayan Vishve's certificate and the order has attained

finality right up to the Supreme Court. However, we

have been consistently holding that the decision of the

scrutiny committee would only bind the claimant and

would not bind the blood relatives, for the simple

reason that they are not parties to such adiudication

and that a blood relative may be able to substantiate

his claim by leading cogent and relevant evidence

sufficient enough to discharge the burden cast upon

him under section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII

of 2001."

20. Learned AGPs submitted that while rejecting the

documents, the Committee relied on the entry of Balaiyya

Judgment 13 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

Shivayya's birth of 1936 and the death entry of Sayanna

Balaiyya of 1931. The Caste Scrutiny Committee also rejected

the claim on the basis of affinity test. While coming to the

conclusion that the petitioner has not cleared the affinity test,

there is no standard format to come to this conclusion. There is

no specific standard that what are the custom, culture and

tradition of Mannewar Scheduled Tribe. In the judgment in

Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe

Claims others, (2012) 1 SCC 113, the Hon'ble Apex Court held

as under:

"22. 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

Judgment 14 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

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, the affinity test may not be regarded

as a litmus test forestablishing 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 tribe's 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."

21. In view of proposition laid in the above referred

judgments passed by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

we are of the considered opinion that the impugned orders

passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee are

Judgment 15 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

patently illegal and do not sustain the scrutiny of law, and

therefore, are liable to be quashed and set aside.

22. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order:-

(i) The Writ Petitions are allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 10.07.2023 and

19.10.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 2 -

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,

Amravati in Case No. izdj.k dz-lvk/vtizrl/ve/5/501/

Edu/042021/182123 and Case No. izdj.k dz-

lvk/vtizrl/ve/5-ST/2006/10028 respectively are

hereby quashed and set aside.

(iii) It is held and declared that the petitioners

have duly established that they belong to

"Mannewar" Scheduled Tribe.

(iv) The Respondent No. 2 - Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby

directed to issue validity certificates of "Mannewar"

Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of

Judgment 16 J-W.P. No.1889 OF 2024+1

three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment.

(v) The petitioners can rely on this judgment till

the certificates are issued in their favour.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Pending

Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

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

Ansari