Bombay High Court
Shubham Jitendra Thakur U/G ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 26 October, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
(1) 1042-wp-11265-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.11265 OF 2021
SHUBHAM JITENDRA THAKUR U/G FATHER JITENDRA EKNATH
THAKUR ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondents-State.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2021.
PER COURT:-
1. The tribe claim of the petitioner as
belonging to 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe is
invalidated.
2. Mr. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in the school record of
forefathers of the petitioner 'Thakur' entry
exists. Right since 1942 in the school record of
the grandfather, cousin grandfather and cousin
uncles of the petitioner all entries record caste
as 'Thakur'. Only on the ground of area
restriction and affinity test, the claim has been
invalidated. The learned counsel relies on the
following judgment:
1. In a case of Rushikesh Bharat Thakur Vs/ Union
of India and Ors. in Writ Petition No.7667 of 2020
dated 16.12.2020.
2. In a case of Harsha D/o Narendra Thakur and
(2) 1042-wp-11265-2021
Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. in Writ
Petition No.8484 of 2020 dated 08.01.2021.
3. In a case of Shivam S/o Rajendra Deore Vs. The
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar in Writ Petition
No.14059 of 2019 dated 15.10.2020.
4. In a case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny
and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors. reported
in (2012) 1 SCC 113.
3. The learned A.G.P. submits that, though
there are no contra entries on record, the
petitioner does not belong to the area where the
persons of Thakur, Scheduled Tribe community
usually reside. The petitioner also failed the
affinity test. The Thakur found in the higher
caste. All these aspects have been considered by
the Committee.
4. We have gone through the judgments
delivered by the Committee.
5. The petitioner relies on the following
chart:
v- nLr,sotkpk nlr,sot/kkjdkps uko vtZnkj ;kaps tkrhph uksan uksan.kh fnukad
dz- izdkj ukrs
1- 'kkys; iqjkok Jh- egk# gjpan Bkdwj pqyr vktksck Bkdwj 06-06-1942
2- TUe iqjkok Jh- ,dukFk gjpan Bkdwj vktksck fganq Bkdwj 14-06-1943
3- 'kkys; iqjkok Jh- izYgkn xaxk/kj Bkdwj pqyr dkdk fganq Bkdwj 08-07-1948
4- 'kkys; iqjkok Jh- ftrsanz ,dukFk Bkdwj oMhy fganq Bkdwj 07-07-1982
5- 'kkys; iqjkok Jh- olar egk# Bkdwj pqyr dkdk fganq Bkdwj 08-08-1963
6- 'kkys; iqjkok Jh- "kqHke ftrsanz Bkdwj vtZnkj fganq Bkdwj ,l- 15-06-2013
Vh-
(3) 1042-wp-11265-2021
6. It would appear that, pre-Constitutional
and pre-Presidential Notification documents of the
petitioner's forefathers record tribe as 'Thakur'.
We do not find a single contra entry on record.
The aspect of the removal of area restriction has
been considered by this Court in above referred
judgments. It has been held by the Apex Court in a
case of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors. (supra)
affinity test is not the litmus test.
7. In the present matter right since 1942 all
entries of tribe are referred as 'Thakur' in the
school record of the petitioner's forefathers.
8. In light of the above, the impugned
judgment is quashed and set aside. The committee
shall issue validity certificate of 'Thakur',
Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner immediately.
9. Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(R. N. LADDHA) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/October-2021
