Bombay High Court
Anushka Sanjay Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 28 October, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
1 915-wp 11970-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 11970 OF 2021
Anushka Sanjay Thakur .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Mr. Digambar B. Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATED : 28th October, 2021.
PER COURT:-
. The tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur
(Scheduled Tribe)" is invalidated.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the year
1922 the school record of the petitioner's forefathers records tribe as
"Thakur". Not a single contra entry exists. All entries are consistent
since the year 1922 of "Thakur". The respondents have invalidated the
tribe claim only on the ground of area restrictions and the affinity test.
The learned counsel submits that area restrictions have been lifted. The
learned counsel further submits that affinity test is not the litmus test.
The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case
1 of 3
2 915-wp 11970-2021.odt
of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims
and others reported in (2012)1 SCC 113.
3. The learned A.G.P. submits that the petitioner has failed in the
affinity test. The petitioner does not reside at a place where normally
"Thakur (Scheduled Tribe)" persons are to reside. Though there is no
contra entry on record and as the petitioner has failed in the affinity
test the same is relevant fact.
4. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned
counsel for respective parties.
5. The following documents and the relationship of the petitioner
with the persons referred to therein are not disputed. The same is
reproduced as under :
v- nLr,sotkpk izdkj nLr,sot/kkjdkps uko vtZnkj ;kaP;k"kh Tkkrhph uksan Ukksan.kh
dz- ukrs fnukad
1 "kkys; iqjkok vuq'dk lat; Bkdqj vtZnkj fganw Bkdwj 15-06-2009
vuq- tekrh
2 "kkys; iqjkok Lakt; j?kqukFk Bkdqj oMhy fganw Bkdwj 14-07-1981
b-ek-
3 "kkys; iqjkok j?kqukFk ia<jhukFk Bkdqj vktksck fganw Bkdwj 02-05-1953
4 "kkys; iqjkok iqatkckbZ ia<jhukFk Bkdqj vktksckaph cfg.k fganw Bkdwj 06-06-1955
5 "kkys; iqjkok dkf"kukFk ia<jhukFk Bkdqj Pkqyr vktksck fganw Bkdwj 02-07-1945
6 "kkys; iqjkok ia<jhukFk jkepanz Bkdqj iatksck fganw Bkdwj 17-04-1924
7 "kkys; iqjkok :ipan nsopan Bkdqj Pkqyr iatksck fganw Bkdwj 21-12-1922
2 of 3
3 915-wp 11970-2021.odt
6. It would appear that the first entry of "Thakur" in the school
record of the cousin great grandfather of the petitioner is dated
21.12.1922. Another entry in the school record of the great grandfather
of the petitioner is dated 17.04.1924. There are other entries of the
year 1945, 1953 and 1955 in the school record of the petitioner's
grandfather, the cousin grandfather records tribe as "Thakur".
7. The affinity test is not the litmus test as held by the Apex Court
in a case of Anand Vs. Committee (supra).
8. Considering the consistent entries of pre-constitutional and pre-
presedential notification period and not a single contra entry exists, we
are inclined to consider the case of the petitioner.
9. In the light of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set
aside. The committee shall issue validity certificate to the petitioner of
"Thakur (Scheduled Tribe)" immediately.
10. Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
( R. N. LADDHA ) ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
JUDGE JUDGE
P.S.B.
3 of 3
