Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra And ... vs Latabai Maharu Koli Alias Latabai ... on 10 June, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Mehare
1 WP.2691-22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2691 OF 2022
Latabai D/o Maharu Koli @
Latabai W/o Chandrakant Sonawane,
Age 51 years, Occu. Social Work / Agri.,
R/o 396, Jaikisanwadi, Jalgaon,
Tq. & District Jalgaon. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Ministry of Social Justice,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar,
Through its Member Secretary.
3. Jagdishchandra S/o Ramesh Valvi,
Age 58 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Plot No.1, Old Yawal Road,
Chopda, Tq. Chopda,
District Jalgaon.
4. Arjunsing Biyantsing Vasave,
Age 60 years, Occu. Business - Ex. M.L.A.,
R/o Samata Housing Society,
Baherpura, Nandurbar,
Tq. and District Nandurbar.
5. The Jalgaon Municipal Corporation,
Jalgaon, Through its Commissioner,
Tq. and District Jalgaon. ... Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. R. N. Dhorde (Senior Counsel) i/b
Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Mr. Vasant Bholankar and Mr. P. S. Dighe.
G.P. for Respondents-State: Mr. D. R. Kale.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4: Mr. V. D. Sapkal (Senior
Counsel) i/b Mr Y. B. Bolkar.
Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. V. D. Gunale.
...
2 WP.2691-22.odt
CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA, AND
S. G. MEHARE, J.J.
RESERVED ON : 13.04.2022
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.06.2022
JUDGMENT : (Per S. G. Mehare, J.):-
1. Rule. Learned Government Pleader waives service of
notice for respondents Nos.1 and 2. Learned senior counsel
Mr. Sapkal waives service of notice for respondents Nos.3 and
4. Mr. Gunale, the learned Counsel, waives service of notice for
respondent No.5.
2. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By the consent of the
parties heard finally.
3. The petitioner is elected Member of the Legislative
Assembly. She takes exception to the judgment and order
passed by respondent No.2 (Committee) dated 09.02.2022
invalidating her claim of "Tokre Koli" Scheduled Tribe.
4. The facts of the case, in a narrow compass, are that the
petitioner was elected Corporator for Jalgaon Municipal
Corporation on the Scheduled Tribe reserved seat. Her caste
certificate was forwarded to the Committee for validation.
Meantime, she contested the election for Legislative Assembly
3 WP.2691-22.odt
from the Chopda constituency and was elected. She then
resigned from the post of the Corporator. However, her caste
claim, registered after her proposal for validation after her
election as Corporator, was pending. In the said case,
respondent No.2 had called a Villigence Report. She was called
upon to submit her explanation to the said report. However,
instead of replying to the said report, she insisted on deciding
on her application for withdrawal of the proposal. Since she
did not file her reply, the Scrutiny Committee / respondent No.
2 invalidated her claim by order dated 04.11.2020.
5. The petitioner impugned the said judgment and order in
Writ Petition No.7721/2020. By order dated 03.12.2020, in
Writ Petition No.7721/2020, this Court directed the petitioner
to resubmit the tribe certificate issued by the competent
Authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner, before the
Committee within seven days and further directed to decide
the validation proceedings of the petitioner expeditiously and
preferably within a period of four months. The order passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No.7721 of 2020 was challenged by
respondent No.3 before the Honourable Supreme Court vide
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.15997 of 2020.
4 WP.2691-22.odt
6. The petitioner had also filed Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.8632 of 2021 against the same order. However, in
the meantime, the petitioner approached this Court by Writ
Petition No.3909 of 2021, praying for transfer of the validation
proceedings from the Nandurbar Committee to any other
Committee. The said petition was dismissed. Special Leave
Petition filed against the orders passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.7721 of 2020 was dismissed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on 07.12.2021 with a direction to the
respondent No.2-Committee to decide the proceedings within
four (4) months from the date of the order.
7. Respondent No.3/the objector, filed an objection on the
caste claimed by her before the Scrutiny Committee.
Respondent No.3 had filed Writ Petition No.14645 of 2019
before this Court seeking a direction to decide the tribe claim
at the earliest.
8. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P. 7721 of 2020,
the petitioner presented her fresh application for caste
validation on 09.12.2020. Respondent No.2 perused the caste
proposal and decided to call for a Vigilance Report. The
Vigilance Cell filed 1068 pages report on 19.05.2021. After
taking every chance to prolong the say to the said Vigilance
5 WP.2691-22.odt
Report, the petitioner finally submitted her explanation to the
said report on 20.08.2021.
9. Respondent No.3 filed Contempt Petition No.346 of
2021, alleging non-compliance of the directions issued in Writ
Petition No.7721 of 2020. This Court, on the statement of
A.G.P., issued directions to expedite the proceedings. In the
said contempt proceedings, the petitioner was not a party.
Hence, she filed another Writ Petition No.9228 of 2021 for re-
calling the order dated 05.08.2021. This Court also disposed of
the said petition on 15.09.2021. Finally, respondent No.2
passed the impugned order.
10. The petitioner has raised various grounds in her
explanation submitted to the Vigilance Report and the opinion
of the Research Officer. The explanation in detail has been
given on the factual aspects.
11. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhorde
for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for
respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal,
representing the complainant-respondent Nos.3 and 4 and
learned counsel Mr. Gunale for respondent No.5 at length. We
6 WP.2691-22.odt
have perused the record with the assistance of the learned
Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
12. In support of the contention of the tribe claim, the
petitioner placed on record 61 documents in all. The petitioner
relied on pre-independence and post-independence school
admission registers and the School leaving certificates of her
forefathers and close relatives. She also relied on the Birth and
Death certificates of her relatives of pre-independence. The
pre-independence documents were in Modi Script and
translated by an expert translator. She also filed the affidavits
of the persons with similar surnames stating that they were not
her relatives. She specified the serial numbers in the vigilance
report, which were not her relatives.
13. The Vigilance Cell has also collected around 123
documents and has done a profound fact-finding. The Vigilance
Cell submitted the report that in birth and death entries from
1880 to 1967, except for few blood relatives, mostly the caste
entries of Koli, Hindu Koli, Hindu Suryawanshi Koli, Hindu Koli
Other Backward Class, are against the claim of Tokre Koli. The
Vigilance Cell has specifically opined that the entries of the
blood relatives of the applicant from 1880 to 1981 were of
Tokre Koli. The Committee has recorded a finding that there
7 WP.2691-22.odt
are contra entries. Respondent No.2 described pre-
independence entries and arrived at the conclusion that there
are many contra entries. Hence, the petitioner failed to prove
that she belongs to the "Tokre Koli" tribe and lastly invalidated
the claim declaring her certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Amalner, District Jalgaon invalid.
14. Mr. Dhorde, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner,
has vehemently argued that the Scrutiny Committee, while
scrutinizing the tribe claim of the petitioner, has admitted the
availability of the record of the close blood relatives. However,
the same has been brushed aside, observing that there is also a
number of other contra entries of the close blood relatives of
the petitioner. Instead of quality and receivable evidence, the
Scrutiny Committee has erroneously given more weightage to
the quantity of the documents. The Scrutiny Committee has
conveniently discarded the oldest entries. The Committee
ought to have accepted the evidence of the birth and death
registers of 1880 and 1881, which mentions the "Tokre Koli"
caste.
15. It is submitted that the Committee has not assigned the
reason for refusing to accept such oldest entries on record. The
Committee has utterly failed to consider the reply filed by the
8 WP.2691-22.odt
petitioner to the Vigilance Cell Report. The Modi script entries
are the oldest record. Those entries were unchallenged, so the
Scrutiny Committee ought to have considered those
documents. The said record does not create any doubt. The
Scrutiny Committee has misunderstood the genuineness of the
document and unnecessarily fell prey to the allegations made
by respondents Nos.3 and 4, who are the rival contestants of
the petitioner. The Vigilance Cell Report is also biased and
prepared by a person / Officer not competent to carry out the
vigilance report.
16. It is submitted that the affinity test is not the litmus test,
and certainly, the documentary evidence would prevail over
the so-called affinity test. Hence, though the petitioner's case
was strong enough based on the documents, the affinity test
has been given extreme importance. The Vigilance Cell was not
constituted as per Section 10 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 Act, 2000 (For short 'the said Act'). He relied on few
case laws.
9 WP.2691-22.odt
17. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, Mr. Kale
argued that the Vigilance Cell Officer has intensely scrutinized
the death and birth and school record produced by the
petitioner. The Vigilance Cell Officer has collected the copies of
the original school record and got it translated by Mr. Popat
Sitaram Thorat, an authorized translator. The Vigilance Cell
has collected the relevant documents to verify the genuineness
and authenticity of the documents relied upon by the
petitioner. There are contra entries in the old documentary
record, in school record and some of the death and birth
entries. He supported the impugned order.
18. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal for respondents
Nos.3 and 4 has vehemently opposed the grounds raised by the
petitioner. He has pointed out that a large number of entries
since pre-independence of blood relatives are of the "Koli"
caste. He would refer to around 107 such birth and death
entries. The School leaving certificate of the petitioner shows
"Hindu Other Backward" caste, and her father's School leaving
certificate shows the caste as "Koli". The old school record of
the petitioner, if considered, apparently raises a doubt about
the admission of her forefathers to pre-primary class at a
higher age and mostly after attaining the age of majority.
10 WP.2691-22.odt
Admissions to the School at higher age do not appeal to a
prudent man's mind to believe it to be genuine.
19. It is submitted that the translated copies of the Modi
script produced by the petitioner cannot be accepted or
received in evidence unless the original document from which
it is translated is produced on record. The translated copy
produced by the petitioner states that the same was translated
and not prepared from the original document. Dilip Eknath
Koli, Punju Arjun Baviskar and Shantaram Soma Baviskar, who
executed affidavits in her favour, have no relation with the
petitioner is not correct. The genealogy of more than 200
names cannot be disbelieved. This evidence was genuinely
brought by the Vigilance Cell. Out of these 200 and more
names, none of them has been issued a validity certificate. The
validity relied upon by the petitioner was permitted by the
High Court to his brother/validity holder to obtain a caste
certificate of Special Backward Class. Hence, not a single
validity holder is found in the family tree.
20. It is submitted that if the case of the petitioner is
accepted and a certificate of validity is granted to the
petitioner, then the entire village would get the certificate of
validity. There is no bar for the appointment of the retired
11 WP.2691-22.odt
Superintendent of Police as a Vigilance Officer. He was
appointed following the due procedure of law. While
determining the validity and legality of the judgment passed by
the Scrutiny Committee, the High Court, while exercising the
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the fact-
finding authority. To support his arguments, learned senior
Counsel Mr. Sapkal would rely on the case of S. Nagrajan Vs.
District Collector Salem and others, (1997) 2 SCC 571,
wherein the Supreme Court laid down the law on the scope of
the High Court's interference with the findings reached in an
inquiry that the High Court could not act as a court of appeal
to appreciate the evidence itself. The ratio laid in the above
case needs no discussion.
21. It is submitted that there is contra evidence which raises
serious doubts about the genuineness of the petitioner's claim.
The Committee has considered each document in proper
perception. He supported the impugned judgment and order
and prayed to dismiss the petition. To bolster his argument, he
relied on the case of Union of India Vs. Alok Kumar with other
Civil Applications (2010) 5 SCC 349. He has also argued that
no documents were placed on record in the earlier round of
12 WP.2691-22.odt
litigation. The documents relied on now are created
documents. He raises serious doubt about the genuineness of
such documents. The contra evidence is of the contemporary
period. Hence, the Scrutiny Committee has rightly relied on
the contra evidence and discarded the claim of the petitioner
correctly. A large number of contra entries are available that
disprove the claim of the petitioner.
22. Mr. Gunale, learned Counsel for respondent No.5, has
adopted the argument advanced by learned senior Counsel Mr.
Sapkal.
23. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS :-
The petitioner has relied on the following school record
to prove her claim.
Sr. Name of Name of Relation Caste Year of
No. Document person on with entry evidence
the Applicant
document
1 Extract of Latabai Applicant Hindu Date of Birth
School Maharu Koli (O.B.C.) 01.06.1970
Admission Admission
General year 1976
Register
No.918/4
2 Extract of Maharu Father Koli Date of birth
School Keshav Koli 15.12.1933
Admission Date of
General admission
Register 02.01.1939
No.137/6
3 Village Form Maharu Father Koli Date of birth
No.14 birth Keshav 02.03. 1932
13 WP.2691-22.odt
entry Khandu Koli
4 Village Form Keshav Grand- Hindu Date of Death
No. 14 death Khandu Koli father 10.11.1960
entry
5 Extract of birth Keshav Uncle Tokre Koli Date of birth
Yawal Nagar Khandu Koli 21.06.1928
Parishad Sanpulekar
(son)
6 Extract of birth Keshav Aunt Tokre Koli Date of birth
Yawal Nagar Khandu Koli 04.07.1930
Parishad Sanpulekar
(daughter)
7 School Leaving Keshav Grand- Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Khandu father 07.06.1904
sr.no. 148 Baviskar Date of
General admission
Register No. 01.04.1920
Modi Lipi R.
8 School Leaving Supdu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Khandu grand- 05.05.1901
sr.no. 150 Baviskar father Date of
General admission
Register No. 25.04.1922
Modi Lipi R.
9 School Leaving Yeso Khandu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Baviskar grand- 08.01.1908
sr.no. 155 father Date of
General Admission
Register No. 21.04.1922
Modi Lipi R.
10 School Leaving Ketu Kalu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Baviskar grand- 09.05.1900
sr.no. 151 father Date of
General Admission
Register No. 01.04.1920
Modi Lipi R.
11 School Leaving Rahula Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Trimbak grand- 07.06.1908
sr.no. 149 Baviskar mother Date of
General Admission
Register No. 01.04.1923
Modi Lipi R.
12 Leaving Tukadu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Trimbak grand- 07.07.1901
14 WP.2691-22.odt
sr.no. 156 Baviskar father Date of
General Admission
Register No. 04.04.1921
Modi Lipi R.
13 School Leaving Bhoju Kalu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Baviskar grand- 06.01.1905.
sr.no. 147 father Date of
General Admission
Register No. 01.04.1921
Modi Lipi R.
14 School Leaving Zipru Kalu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Baviskar grand- 09.07.1909.
sr.no. 153 father Date of
General Admission
Register No. 01.04.1923
Modi Lipi R.
15 School Leaving Mukta Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Khandu Koli grand- 07.01.1910.
sr.no. 145 mother Date of
General Admission
Register No. 22.04.1922
Modi Lipi R.
16 School Leaving Huna Cousin- Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Lahanu cousin 20.02.1912.
sr.no. 158 Baviskar grand- Date of
General father Admission
Register No. 21.06.1924
Modi Lipi R.
17 School Leaving Ram Dagdu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Baviskar cousin 03.05.1914.
sr.no. 146 uncle Date of
General Admission
Register No. 01.03.1921
Modi Lipi R.
18 School Leaving Arjun Dagdu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Baviskar cousin 16.12.1914.
sr.no. 152 uncle Date of
General Admission
Register No. 17.06.1924
Modi Lipi R.
19 School Leaving Govinda Cousin Tokre Koli Date of birth
Certificate Dagdu Koli cousin 03.01.1916.
sr.no. 154 uncle Date of
15 WP.2691-22.odt
General Admission
Register No. 26.04.1922
Modi Lipi R.
20 School Leaving Sona Cousin Tokre Koli Birth date
Certificate Kawtak Koli cousin 07.01.1901
sr.no. 157 grand- Date of
General father admission
Register No. 01.04. 1921
Modi Lipi R.
21 Extract of Lotu Kanhu Cousin Tokre Koli Date of Birth
School Baviskar grand- 09.05.1900
Admission father Date of
General admission
Register No.1 01.04.1920
Bu. No.--
22 Extract of Khudku As per Tokre Koli Date of Birth
School Trimbak Geneolog 07.07.1901
Admission Baviskar y, no Date of
General blood admission
Register No. 13. relative 04.04.1921
23 Extract of Pundlik Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Huna cousin Koli 20.05.1939
Admission Baviskar uncle Date of
General admission
Register No. -- 28.05.1945
Bu. No.01
24 Extract of Vajantabai Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School d/o Arjun niece Koli 01.06.1942
Admission Koli Date of
General Admission
Register No.95 15.06. 1955
Bu. No.02
25 Extract of Mahadu Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Shankar Koli brother Koli 01.06.1942
Admission Date of
General admission
Register No. 80 15.06.1955
Bu. No.02
26 Extract of Baliram Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Ramchandra cousin Koli 20.04.1947
Admission Baviskar uncle Date of
General admission
Register No. 64 __.06.1954
Bu. No.02
27 Extract of Narayan Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Ramchandra cousin Koli 20.06.1948
Admission Baviskar uncle Date of
16 WP.2691-22.odt
General admission
Register No. 65 __.06.1954
Bu. No.02
28 Extract of Tarachand Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Amrut Koli uncle Koli 01.01.1946
Admission Date of
General admission -
Register No.23 01.08.1951
Bu. No.02
29 Extract of Sitaram Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Huna Koli cousin Koli 01.10.1946
Admission uncle Date of
General admission -
Register No.38 10.03.1952
B. No.02
30 Extract of Amrut Cousin Koli Date of birth
School Lahanu Koli cousin 05.03.1918
Admission grand- Date of
General father Admission -
Register No. 25 16.03.1925
Bu. No.01
31 Extract of Govinda Cousin Koli Date of birth
School Dagdu Koli cousin 03.01.1916
Admission uncle Date of
General Admission -
Register No.__ 16.03.1925
Bu. No.01
32 Extract of Rupchand Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Rajaram Koli brother Koli 15.04.1925
Admission Date of
General Admission -
Register No.53 07.06.1933
Bu.No.01
33 Extract of Tanku Cousin Koli Date of birth
School Shamrao brother 15.10.1931
Admission Koli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.199 19.11.1937
Bu.No.01
34 Extract of Bhavlal Cousin Koli Date of birth
School Shankar Koli brother 15.04.1933
Admission Date of
General Admission -
Register No.160 08.06.1940
Bu.No.01
35 Extract of Tulshiram Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Yadav Koli brother Koli 06.08.1934
Admission Date of
General Admission -
17 WP.2691-22.odt
Register No.196 01.07.1941
Bu.No.01
36 Extract of Sukdeo Uncle Hindu Date of birth
School Keshav Koli Koli 14.05.1934
Admission Date of
General Admission -
Register No.196 01.07.1941
Bu.No.02
37 Extract of Bhoju Huna Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Koli cousin Koli 17.01.1935
Admission brother Date of
General Admission -
Register No.99 14.01.1941
Bu.No.02
38 Extract of Soma Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Ramchandra cousin Suryawas 01.06.1937
Admission Bavuskar uncle hi Koli Date of
General Admission
Register No.229 ____
Bu.No.01
39 Extract of Tukaram Cousin Koli Date of birth
School Kitkul brother Suryawas 11.08.1938
Admission Bavuskar hi Date of
General Admission -
Register No.93 01.06.1944
Bu.No.01
40 Extract of Yadav Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Ramchandra cousin Suryawas 30.12.1938
Admission Bavuskar uncle hi Date of
General Admission -
Register No.100 09.06.1944
Bu.No.01
41 Extract of Pundlik Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Huna cousin Suryawas 20.05.1939
Admission Bavuskar uncle hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.111 28.05.1945
Bu.No.01
42 Extract of Natu Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Shyamrao brother Koli 20.01.1935
Admission Koli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.192 24.06.1941
Bu.No.01
43 Extract of Sunanda Sister Hindu Date of birth
School Maharu Koli Backward 01.06.1968
Admission Date of
General Admission -
Register 20.06.1974
18 WP.2691-22.odt
No.845/4
44 Extract of Eknath Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Shankar Koli brother Suryawas 01.05.1954
Admission hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.303 1960
Bu.No.02
45 Extract of Sushilabai Sister Hindu Date of birth
School Maharu Koli Suryawas 31.05.1955
Admission hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.___ 1969
Bu.No.02
46 Extract of Narayan Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Ramchandra cousin Koli 20.06.1944
Admission Baviskar uncle Date of
General Admission -
Register No.292 02.06.1960
Bu.No.02
47 Extract of Vatsalabai Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Nathu Koli sister Suryawas 01.06.1951
Admission hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.253 02.06.1959
Bu.No.02
48 Extract of Dagubai Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Shankar Koli sister Suryawas 01.06.1951
Admission hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.256 02.06.1959
Bu.No.02
49 Extract of Ushabai Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Khandu grand- Suryawas 01.06.1953
Admission Baviskar mother hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.263 __.06.1960
Bu.No.02
50 Extract of Punju Arjun Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Koli cousin Koli 01.06.1950
Admission uncle Date of
General Admission
Register No.185 __.07.1957
Bu.No.02
51 Extract of Suklal Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Khandu grand- Suryawas 01.01.1936
Admission Bavuskar father hiKoli Date of
General Admission -
Register No.215 _____
Bu.No.02
19 WP.2691-22.odt
52 Extract of Shobha Sister Hindu Date of birth
School Maharu Koli 01.06.1977
Admission Baviskar (Other Date of
General Backward Admission -
Register ) ______
No.1213/4
53 Extract of Manisha Niece Hindu Date of birth
School Sahebrao Tokre Koli 01.05.1986
Admission Baviskar (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register ______
No.1742/5
54 Extract of Rekhabai Niece Hindu Date of birth
School Sahebrao Tokre Koli 01.06.1989
Admission Baviskar (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register 07.06.1995
No.1832/5
55 Extract of Dhanraj Nephew Hindu Date of birth
School Sahebrao Tokre Koli 01.06.1993
Admission Baviskar (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register 13.06.2000
No.2103/5
56 Extract of Kalyani Niece Hindu Date of birth
School Sahebrao Tokre Koli 05.06.1999
Admission Koli (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register 09.06.2005
No.2378
57 Extract of Archana Niece Hindu Date of birth
School Sahebrao Tokre Koli 01.06.1997
Admission Baviskar (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register 04.06.2003
No.2248
58 Extract of Kailas Nephew Hindu Date of birth
School Sahebrao Tokre Koli 07.03.2001
Admission Koli (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register 15.06.2007
No.2469/6
59 Extract of Rajendra Cousin Hindu Date of birth
School Punju Koli cousin Backward 01.06.1974
Admission nephew Tokre Koli Date of
General Admission -
Register 16.06.1980
No.1065/4
60 Extract of Raghunath Cousin Hindu Date of birth
20 WP.2691-22.odt
School Punju Koli cousin Tokre Koli 01.12.1978
Admission nephew (She.tra.) Date of
General Admission -
Register 29.06.1984
No.1255/5
61 Extract of Balaji Punju Cousin Hindu Date of Birth
School Koli cousin Tokre Koli 08.06.1979.
Admission nephew S.T. Date of
General Admission
Register -12.08.1992
No.2761
24. All the above documents were referred to by respondent
No.2 while determining the claim of the petitioner.
25. Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
referred to the documents mentioned in the chart on page 338,
which are the translated copies of the documents from Modi
script on page 317 onwards. He took us through the findings of
respondent No.2 on page No.35, of the impugned judgment
and argued that respondent No.2 had not doubted the
genuineness of the entries in the School record. In the absence
of concrete evidence, such an old record cannot be thrown
away by the authority when it has recorded the findings that
the pre-independence documents have a probative value.
26. Respondent No.2 referred to 18 entries from the above
chart and recorded the finding that the caste 'Tokare Koli' is
recorded in the school register. These entries are in the name
of the petitioner's grandfather, cousin grandfather, cousin
21 WP.2691-22.odt
cousin grandfather, cousin cousin uncle etc. The columns of
these documents, i.e. original records, are in Marathi, Gujrathi
and Telugu languages. However, they are shown admitted to
Balvarga (Pre Primary/Kindergarten). All these entries are in
Modi script. Respondent No.2 has discarded the old record
assigning the reason that except the above evidence, most of
the caste record collected by the Vigilance Cell is of the caste,
Koli, Hindu Koli, Hindu Suryavanshi Koli and Hindu Koli other
backward, and these are the contra entries. The respondent
No.2 accordingly opined that the petitioner did not belong to
"Tokare Koli" caste.
27. The objection has been raised by the learned senior
Counsel Mr. Sapkal that considering the date of birth and the
date of admission of the relatives in the schools relied upon by
the petitioner seriously raises a doubt that the children cannot
be admitted at such an upper age in Pre Primary /
Kindergarten. Further, the objection is raised that the original
record from which this translation is made is not brought
before the Committee.
28. So far as the issue raised by the respondent Nos.3 and 4
that petitioner did not produce the record is concerned, the
record before respondent No.2 reveals that respondent No.2
22 WP.2691-22.odt
has relied upon the evidence collected by the Vigilance Cell.
The Vigilance Report reveals that the Vigilance Officer has
collected the colour copies of the school record prepared from
the original record kept in Modi script and also sent him a
questionnaire. The Head Master of Zilla Parishad Primary
School of village Sonpule provided him with the documents as
sought and replied that there was only one register in Modi
script, and it was not rewritten. He had supplied the
information from the original record. Considering the response
of the Head Master to his letter dated 17.03.2021, the
possibility of fake entries and rewriting the incorrect record is
ruled out. The evidence collected by the Vigilance Cell is free
from doubt. Hence, we do not accept the argument of learned
senior counsel Mr. Sapkal that, in the absence of original
before the Committee without anybody's request to produce
the same, is a serious infirmity.
29. It has also been objected by learned senior counsel Mr.
Sapkal that in her previous application for validation after she
was elected as a Corporator of Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon,
the documents filed in the present petition were not filed with
that petition. He raises a doubt that the documents filed by the
petitioner in the present case were prepared afterthought.
23 WP.2691-22.odt
Hence, the record of earlier Writ Petition No.7721 of 2020 was
called to verify whether the documents relied upon by the
petitioner were filed in the earlier validation proceeding.
30. The paper book of the said writ petition No.7721/2020
reveals that the copies of the School leaving certificates along
with the general Admission registers of the relatives of the
petitioner at serial Nos.7 to 20 given in the above chart having
pre-independence date of birth were placed on record. Those
documents bear the endorsement that they are prepared from
the registers written in Modi script. So we do not see the
objection as relevant.
31. Learned senior counsel Mr. Sapkal further argued that
the genuineness of the documents referred to above falls under
the shadow of a doubt as the admissions of the relatives of the
petitioners are at the upper age, that too in Balvarga and is
unnatural. A show cause notice dated 28.05.2021 was served
upon the petitioner calling upon the explanation against the
adverse / contra entries of the caste.
32. Perused the reply to the show cause notice dated
28.05.2021 filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied all
the adverse allegations levelled against her. As regards clause
24 WP.2691-22.odt
(a) of the show cause, she has explained that in so far as the
school record of her father and grandfather showing their caste
as "koli" and "Hindu Koli" is concerned the said entries are not
older than the entries obtained by the Vigilance Cell. As
regards clause (b), she explains that the Vigilance Cell ought to
have brought the primary evidence of school admission. The
secondary evidence cannot be relied on by the authority.
33. As regards clause (c), she has explained that pre-
independence caste entries have probative value. Regarding
clauses (d) and (e), she has explained that none of the
committee members has alleged that her blood relatives' caste
entries are either Koli or Suryavanshi Koli have been picked up
and chosen without considering the efficacy of birth as well as
the school record. So far as clause (f) is concerned, she has
stated the same reason as above. For clause (g), she stated that
the Vigilance Cell did not utter a single word about the
genuineness, correctness and authenticity of the school entries.
No evidence is collected to vouchsafe the correctness of the
alleged adverse entries. Moreover, in the old days, census
instructions prevailed upon the authorities to record the caste
by its broad nomenclature, and judicial notice of it has been
taken by the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil.
25 WP.2691-22.odt
34. As regards the clause (h) of the show cause notice, she
has requested to call for its original record for its veracities. For
clause (i), it has been explained that there is no statement of
the Head Master recorded by the Vigilance Officer Mr. Y. G.
Pagare. He was not appointed by the State Government. So far
as the clause (j), it has been explained that during the British
regime and pre-independence era, her relatives, parents and
guardians were not inclined to take education due to extreme
poverty or illiteracy. Therefore, the date of admission of her
relatives in the School whose caste has been mentioned as
"Tokre Koli" indisputably does not matter when this Committee
has been constituted to verify tribe claims and not to bank
upon the technicality.
35. As regards clause (k), she has stated that her uncle
Govinda Dagadu was admitted to the School in 1922. His caste
had been mentioned as "Tokre Koli" in Modi script. However,
while carrying forward in another school record in 1925 same
had been taken simply as "Koli" for which he or she cannot be
blamed. For clause (l), she has stated that the caste of his uncle
Ramu Dagadu Koli has been mentioned as 'Koli" in the birth
record. However, when he was admitted to School in 1921, his
caste was mentioned as 'Tokar Koli". So far as the difference in
26 WP.2691-22.odt
the date of birth and School record, she explained that no care
was taken due to widespread poverty, illiteracy etc. Even now,
most of the students are admitted to the School in the month
of June, and their birth dates are mentioned as 1 st June, which
is within a special knowledge of the Committee. Nothing
prevented the Vigilance Cell from taking up the matter before
the higher authority to make the school record available in
Modi script.
36. Petitioner has admitted that the persons listed at serial
Nos.1 to 17, 26, 28, 35, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 62, 64 to
66, 68, 72 and 73 are the only her blood relatives from her
paternal side.
37. Petitioner has specifically denied that the list of persons
given at page Nos.19 to 44 of the vigilance report except the
persons at serial Nos.80, 82, 84, 104, 120, 124, 131, 140, 147,
151, 159, 166, 169, 175, 177, 180, 186, 190, 191, 198, 204 to
211, 213 to 216, 218, 219, 222, 223, 225, 226, 228 to 233,
236, 237, 240 and 241 are not related to her from her paternal
side. The vigilance report is assailed in sum and substance,
having not been carefully investigated.
27 WP.2691-22.odt
38. In the school record mentioned above, the caste of the
relatives of the petitioner has been shown as 'Tokre Koli,' and
they have shown admitted to Balvarga. They were in the
School for a few months from their admissions. For example,
Tukaram Bavuskar was shown admitted to the School on
04.04.1921, and he left the School on 11.12.1921. All these
relatives left the School. In a few cases, after three years of
their admissions, they were shown learning in Ist standard at
the time of leaving the School.
39. The question that arises is, whether a document
maintained by the School in due course of business and thirty
years old documents can be discarded?
40. Learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde has relied upon the
case of Anand vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims and Others (2012) 1 SCC 113 , in the said
judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph
22 which reads thus,
"22. It is manifest from the afore extracted 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
28 WP.2691-22.odt
a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad
parameters could be kept n 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 ispso 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
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."
41. Learned Senior counsel relied on the case of Vilas Dinkar
Bhat Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2020 (6) All M.R.
577. In the said case, there were 23 documents on record
showing the caste as "Maratha" or "Marathi", and only four
documents record the caste as "Thakar". In the judgment, this
Court held that Marathi is the caste and not the language. The
peculiar facts of that case were that the original record of those
four documents was called for, and the Committee was
satisfied with the genuineness of the entries. In the light of
these facts, it has been observed that a Committee cannot
throw those four constitutional documents. However, this case
is distinguishable on facts.
29 WP.2691-22.odt
42. Learned Senior counsel relied on the judgment of this
Court in case of Ajay Narayan Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others, 2019(4) ALL M.R. 372 . In the said case, the caste
claim was rejected as there was overwriting in the school
record of the father of the petitioner, and with the
endorsement of the Headmistress word "Halba" was written in
different ink. In the report of Vigilance Cell, except for the
entry in the name of the petitioner's father, the validity of the
grandfather's caste was not disputed. There was evidence
showing that not a single document showed the tribe of the
petitioner or his blood relatives other than Halba. In the set of
facts, the ratio has been laid down that all those documents
have probative value.
43. The record reveals that the petitioner is not the first ever
to attend the School. On the contrary, her father, grandfather,
and grand cousin uncles attended the School before the
independence. The school record is free from infirmity, and no
evidence is produced to believe that the said record is
fabricated. The cousin grandfather of the petitioner namely,
Huna Baviskar was shown admitted to the School lastly
amongst others on 21.06.1924 and was born on 20.02.1912.
Her two cousin grandfathers Ketu Kalu Baviskar and Lotu
30 WP.2691-22.odt
Kanhu Baviskar were shown admitted to School first amongst
others on 01.04.1920 who were born on the same date i.e.
09.05.1900.
44. Their caste in the school record was 'Tokre Koli." The
record further reveals that the tribe claim from the family of
the petitioner was broken when her second cousin uncle
namely Pundalik Huna Baviskar was admitted to the School on
28.05.1945. This chain remained broken till the admission of
her real sister namely Shobha admitted to the School on
01.06.1977. Then again, the School Leaving Certificate of her
brother's daughter, namely Manisha Sahebrao Baviskar, whose
admission date is missing, shows her caste as "Tokre koli". Her
father, who was admitted to the School on 02.01.1939, has
also not shown belonging to Scheduled tribe "Tokre koli". His
caste is mentioned as' Koli." The petitioner has no case that
any time before an attempt was made to correct the caste of
herself, her sisters and the father. Her father's caste in the birth
register maintained by Yawal Nagar Parishad is shown as "Koli"
and his date of birth also differs from the date of birth shown
in the school admission register. The death certificate of her
grandfather shows his caste as "Hindu". Indisputably 'Hindu' is
not a caste. It is a religion.
31 WP.2691-22.odt
45. Section 35 of the Evidence Act deals with an entry made
in the public record stating a fact in issue or relevant fact made
by a public servant in discharge of his public duty specially
enjoined by the law, itself is a relevant fact. Such entry is
admissible in evidence, and it has a probative value. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Radha
Krishna Singh and Ors. A.I.R. 1983 SC 684 has observed that
"Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative
value is quite another. These two aspects cannot be combined.
A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any
conviction, and the weight of its probative value may be nil. A
probative value of documents which, however ancient they
may be, do not disclose the source of their information or have
not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little".
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of Madan
Mohan Sing Vs. Rajni Kant, A.I.R. 2010 SC 2933 in paragraph
no. 16, observed thus,
"16. So far as the entries made in the official record by an
official or persons authorized in the performance of official
duties are concerned, they may be admissible under section 35
of the Evidence Act but the Court has a right to examine their
probative value. The authenticity of the entries would depend on
whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his
source of information. The entry in School Register/School
32 WP.2691-22.odt
Leaving Certificate require to be proved in accordance with law
and the standard of proof required in such cases remained the
same as in any other civil or criminal case."
47. It is clear from the above ratio that, though the
document is old, if it does not disclose the sources of their
information, such document cannot be admitted in the
evidence. Its probative value has to be examined before
accepting the public document in evidence. A public document
may be admissible, but whether its contents have any probative
value may still be required to be examined in the facts and
circumstances of a particular case. This indicates that the Court
has to examine each case on its facts and circumstances.
48. The second aspect to be considered in this case is the age
of the documents. The documents relied upon by the
petitioners are mostly thirty years old. Under section 90 of the
evidence act, such thirty-year-old documents, if produced from
proper custody, are presumed to be genuine. The presumptions
are always rebuttable. Its genuineness may be rebutted by
producing contra evidence. Bearing in mind the above legal
principle regarding the admissibility of the documents relied
on by both sides, the present would be dealt with.
33 WP.2691-22.odt
49. The learned senior Counsel Mr. Sapkal has referred to
the entries of birth and death of the relatives of the petitioner
shown in the Vigilance Cell Report and would point out that
these are the contra evidence and that disproves the claim of
the petitioner. The petitioner, in her explanation to the show
cause on the vigilance report, has given the serial numbers of
the persons who are not her blood relatives from her paternal
side. However, she has not denied the blood relations with the
persons shown at serial Nos. 80, 82, 84, 104, 120, 124, 131,
140, 147, 151, 159, 166, 169, 175, 177, 180, 186, 190,
191,198, 204 to 211, 231 to 216, 218,219, 222, 223, 225, 226,
238 to 233, 236, 237, 240 and 241.
50. The person named in serial No.80 in the chart of
Vigilance Cell is shown as born on 25.04.1907, and the last
person in serial No.124 is shown as born on 24.07.1913. Other
persons in the remaining serial numbers have shown dead pre-
independence between 1914 and 30.09.1946. Rest have been
shown dead post-independence. The caste of the persons
named in the chart has been written as "Koli'.
51. The roznama (order sheet) of the proceeding date
11.01.2022 reveals that the petitioner had requested
respondent No.2 to call the Chief Executive Officer, Yawal
34 WP.2691-22.odt
Nagar Parishad, District Jalgaon. Accordingly, the
Superintendent, namely Mr. Rajendra Deore and Clerk
Rajendra Gaikwad from the birth-death register section,
appeared before the Committee, and produced the birth and
death original register for the years 1928 and 1930. However,
in the Rojnama dated 11.01.2022, there is a reference to a
letter dated 10.01.2022 written by the Chief Officer, Nagar
Parishad Yawal. In the said proceeding, the said letter is placed
on page No.681. Its contents have been reproduced in the
roznama in the words that, 'while inspecting the said document
or register, it is observed that the then staff has rewritten the
document as it is from the original register as it was likely to
be destructed due to tearing and rotting'.
52. The roznama further reveals that the birth-death register
having a son and daughter born to Keshav Khandu Koli, the
grandfather of the petitioner, was given to the complainant and
his learned Counsel. After going through the said report, he
made a statement that the original record from which the
record was rewritten was not available in the office of Nagar
Parishad Yawal. Further, the witness made a statement that
whatever record is produced is used in the office as an official
record. The learned Counsel for complainant No.1 raised an
35 WP.2691-22.odt
objection that the copies produced by Mr. Deore are not
certified by the Head of the Office. The serial numbers on those
documents are not in sequence. The blank pages have been
lined. Page No.185 did not find in the register thereon Mr.
Deore made a statement that the original record from which
the copy is made is not available in the Nagar Parishad.
53. The learned Counsel for the complainant raises an
objection that since it is a re-constructed record, that cannot be
conclusive evidence. On the contrary, on examining the said
record, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made a
statement that in the birth register, the caste is mentioned as
"Tokre Koli". It is urged that there is neither overwriting nor
change in the handwriting in the said record. The said record
was then returned to the concerned authorized person.
54. The Roznama dated 11.01.2022 further reveals that the
learned Counsel for the petitioner had placed an affidavit of
Mr. Dilip Eknath Koli to prove that he is not in the pedigree of
the petitioner. He stated in his affidavit that the Vigilance
Officer never inquired with him. The Counsel for the
complainant made a statement that the affidavit was filed only
to strengthen the petitioner's case. Learned Counsel for the
petitioner has submitted an affidavit of Vithhal Tanku Koli, in
36 WP.2691-22.odt
which he has stated that he is not the blood relative of the
petitioner. In a question put to him by the Counsel for the
complainant, he said that the Vigilance Officer did not
interrogate him. An affidavit of Punju Arjun Koli is also filed in
which he stated that Mr. Dagadu had no brothers, namely
Tukaram and Shravan. A similar affidavit of Soma
Ramchandra Koli (Baviskar) is also filed.
55. The rozanama further reveals that the petitioner's
Counsel had produced two documents. Those were supplied to
the opponent. The Committee referred those documents to the
Vigilance Committee and directed to verify their genuineness
within two days.
56. Pursuant to the directions, the Vigilance Cell submitted
its report on 14.01.2022 on page No.722 in the original
proceeding. The Vigilance Cell tested the veracity of the birth-
death register from the year 1880 to 1914 maintained by
Tahasil Office at Chopda, District Jalgaon. He finds that the
registers from 1880 to 1914 are in Modi script. He obtained
colour copies of the Modi script register from the Tahasil Office
and got it translated by translator Mr. Shripad Nandedkar. It
was revealed that the persons namely, (a) Saki s/o Ragho s/o
Bhila, (b) Dhagi w/o Yedu Avachit, (c) Dagadu s/o Wedu s/o
37 WP.2691-22.odt
Ukha, (d) Rama s/o Kautik, (e) Tanu s/o Bakadu s/o Rama, (f)
Dagadu s/o Eka s/o Bakadu, and (g) Dasrya s/o Ragho s/o
Bhila were born pre-indpendence and their caste is "Tokare
Koli".
57. In her previous application, the petitioner had given the
following genealogy in her affidavit.
ds'ko
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
ek/ko egk# lqiMh fdVdqy
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
lkgscjko lquank 'kksHkk yrkckbZ¼vtZnkj½
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
efu"kk js[kkckbZ /kujkt vpZuk dY;k.kh dSykl
58. The petitioner then, with the present application, has
submitted a new genealogy as follows ;
uequk Q e/khy 'kiFki=ke/;s [kkyhy izek.ks foLr`r
oa'kkoGhph ekfgrh nsr vkgksr-
eqG iq#"k
nknkth
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
fHkyk meZy
jkek vofpr
38 WP.2691-22.odt
cdMq ;sGq
&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
,dk dkSfrd ygkuq dkGw f=acd
[kaMw
nXkMw lksuk¼tq-iw-½ &&&&&&&
&&&&&&&
dsVq Hkkstw f>i#
gquk¼tq-iw-½ jkepanz ¼tq-iw-½ ¼tq-iw-½
¼tq-iw-½
&&&&&&&
iqaMyhd Hkkstw &&&&&&&& &&&&&
&&&&&&&&
ckiq os.kq lksek rqdMw
jkgwykckbZ
jkeq vtqZu xksfoank tq-iw-½ ¼tq-
iw-½
¼tq-iw-½ ¼tq-iw-½ ¼tq-iw-½
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
lqiMw ds'ko ;slks eqDrk
iqatw ¼tq-iw-½ ¼tq-iw-½ ¼tq-
iw-½ ¼tq-iw-½
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
jktsanz¼t-iz-½ j?kqukFk¼t-iz-½ ckykth¼t-iz-½
&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&&& &&&&&& &&&&&& ek/ko lqiMw egk#
fdVdqy
¼tq-iw-½ ¼tq-iw-½
fo'kky 'kjn Hkq"k.k veksy t;s'k Kkus'k
¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
dey lqHkk"k lquank
yrkckbZ 'kksHkk
mQZ lkgscjko
¼vtZnkj½
39 WP.2691-22.odt
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
efu"kk js[kkckbZ /kujkt dY;k.kh dSykl
vpZuk
¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½ ¼t-iz-½
59. In none of the genealogy, she mentioned, Ragho as her
blood relative, who has been shown as a son of Rama by the
Vigilance Officer. To disprove the genealogy prepared by the
Vigilance Officer, the petitioner has filed some affidavits as
mentioned above. Dilip Ekanath Koli has stated in his affidavit
that the Vigilance Officer has incorrectly shown his great great
grandfather namely Ragho Bhila as a blood relative of the
petitioner. He has also stated that his great great grandfather
had two children, namely Sakhi and Dasrya. He has no blood
relation with the petitioner. So they are not her relative. It is
corroborated by the birth-death register entry mentioned on
page No.723 of the proceeding.
60. Punju Arjan Baviskar, in his affidavit, has stated that the
Vigilance Officer, instead of writing his cousin grandfather's
name as Lahanu Bakdu Koli has incorrectly written his name as
Lahanun Shravan Koli and prepared a false genealogy. Shravan
Bakdu was childless, and similarly named persons in the village
have been entered into genealogy. His grandfather Bakdu had
40 WP.2691-22.odt
only one son Dagadu. He had given the same statement to
Vigilance Officer. However, his statement 12.03.2021 reveals
that he has stated that his great grandfather had five brothers,
including Shravan. Hence, his affidavit falls under the shadow
of a doubt.
61. Shantaram Soma Baviskar, in his affidavit, stated that
the petitioner is his cousin sister. However, his grandfather
Lahanu had no brothers. His great great grandfather Eka had
only one son Dagadu. The genealogy prepared by Vigilance
Officer is false. The petitioner in her genealogy has shown
Dagadu as the only son of Eka. The vigilance report does not
show any statement to prove such genealogy. No source of
such information is available on record.
62. Vithhal Tanku koli, in his affidavit, has stated that the
petitioner is not her blood relative, and his branch is different.
He has stated that the name of his cousin uncle has been
incorrectly written as Lahanu Shravan Bakdu instead of
Lahanu Bakdu koli. His statement before the vigilance officer
reveals that he had stated the name of Shravan as his relative.
Hence, his affidavit cannot be accepted.
41 WP.2691-22.odt
63. The persons, namely Dhagi w/o Yedu and Dagdu s/o Eka
s/o Bakdu, are shown in the Vigilance Report dated
14.01.2022 (page No.722), prove that they are the blood
relative of the petitioner. Their cast is shown as "Tokare Koli".
Daghi died on 28.05.1880, and Dagdu was born in 1881, but
his exact date of birth is not given. Both these entries
contradict the record translated by Shri Popat Sitaram Thorat.
The date of death of Dhagi in the Vigilance report dated
20.02.2021 on page 524 shows 05.06.1890 with caste 'Koli'.
Similarly, on page 811 of the said report, the date of birth of
Dagadu s/o Eka is shown as 25.04.1907 with Koli caste. Such
contra evidence destroyed the petitioner's claim.
64. The school admission register and the birth and death
entries are the documents mainly relied upon by the petitioner.
As against this, respondent Nos.3 and 4 relied on the revenue
record and Birth and death entries. The record reveals that
many entries in the Birth and Death Register to have the names
of the blood relatives of the petitioner are of "Koli" caste. The
details have been given in the Vigilance report. Learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Sapkal pointed out such 107 birth and death
entries, out of which some have been not disputed by the
petitioner. He is right in his right in his submission that as
42 WP.2691-22.odt
against the School register entries, the entries from the birth
and death register would prevail. In support of his contention,
he relied on the case of CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Mandevlekar
(2009) 7 SCC 283. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in
paragraph No.18 thus,
"18. The Death and Birth Register maintained by the Statutory
Authorities raises a presumption of correctness. Such entries
made in the statutory registers are admissible in evidence in
terms of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. It would prevail
over an entry made in the School Register, particularly in the
absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of
the Guardian of the respondent."
65. The petitioner' father's caste in his birth register is shown
as "Koli". It was a pre-independence entry. The revenue record
in the name of her grandfather shows his caste as "Hindu". As
observed above, "Hindu" is not a caste. Her sisters' caste in the
School Leaving Certificates is also not shown as "Tokre Koli."
The petitioner has no case that she, her sisters, father or
grandfather has ever attempted to correct their caste in their
School record. Suddenly her brother's children claimed that
they are "Tokre Koli". They have no validity granted in their
favour. Bare entries of such caste in their School leaving
certificate would not support the petitioner.
43 WP.2691-22.odt
66. The petitioner has relied on the validity of one Raju
Daga Koli and claimed that a caste validity is issued to her
blood relative and thus her claim may be accepted. In her reply
to the show cause, she explained that she did not know that
the Scrutiny Committee had invalidated his elder brother's
'Tribe' claim, and it is not binding on her. She has more reliable
documents to prove her claim. As against this respondent
Nos.3 and 4 pointed out that this Court in W.P. No.6721/2014
vide judgment and order dated 25.07.2017 permitted the
petitioner to obtain the certificate of Special Backward Class.
The explanation given by the petitioner indicates that she did
not rely upon the said validity certificate.
67. Learned Counsel Mr. Sapkal has argued that Section 10
of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribe (Regulation of Issuance
and Verification of Certificate) Rules 2003 does not bar the
appointment of the retired employee as Vigilance Officer. To
bolster his arguments, he relied upon the judgment of this
Court in case of Sudha Bhaskarrao Saikhed Vs. Yashodabai
Shikshan Sanstha and others, 2003 (4) Mh. L.J. 659 . The said
case is under a different law and facts.
68. We have examined the relevant rules and find that no
specific bar is provided in the said rules against apponting a
44 WP.2691-22.odt
retired officer or specific provision that the officer in service
shall only be appointed as Vigilance Officer. Be that as it may,
the petitioner was granted a fair opportunity to submit her
reply to the Vigilance Report. Hence, no prejudice is caused to
the petitioner. We do not find substance in such objection to
the appointment of a retired officer as Vigilance Officer.
69. The learned senior counsel Mr. Dhorde would argue that
the affinity test is not a litmus test, and the claim cannot be
declined on the affinity test only. To support his arguments, he
relied on the judgment of this Court in case of Saurabh S/o
Ashok Nikam Vs. State of Maharashtra and another in Writ
Petition No.241 of 2022, decided on 06.01.2022. It is on the
affinity test. The issue as regards the affinity test is well settled,
as discussed above.
70. A detailed discussion of facts and law laid us to arrive at
the conclusion that the Birth and Death entries would prevail
over the entries in the School Admission registers. The
petitioner failed to prove that the caste mentioned in the
school register was recorded on the instructions of their
parents or guardian. On the contrary, the explanation has been
given that census instructions prevailed upon the authorities to
record the caste by its broad nomenclature in the old days.
45 WP.2691-22.odt
This indicates that the caste of her relatives was not recorded
on the instructions or the information of their parents or
guardians.
71. The record further reveals that there was contra
evidence in the Birth and Death registers of her relatives. The
'Koli" caste has been consistently shown in the name of her
father and grandfather. The school record of the petitioner and
her sisters shows their caste as "Koli", and it was not changed
to date. Since her father's lifetime, there have been many caste
entries of "Koli" in the name of her blood relatives, which is
contra evidence. The statement of the concerned person who
appeared before the Committee from Yaval Nagar Parishad has
thrown the light of genuineness on these documents. No
originals were brought before the Committee.
72. The person who appeared for and on behalf of the Yawal
Nagar Parishad ought to have produced the original register
before the Committee, but he has produced the rewritten copy
and shown his inability to produce the same assigning the
reason that the original registers are ragged and there is a
possibility of its tearing. Such evidence cannot be relied upon.
The entries of the pre-indepedence era, if rebutted, cannot be
given probative value. The presumption under section 90 of
46 WP.2691-22.odt
the Indian Evidence Act would also not help the petitioner for
the reason that the strong evidence in rebuttal was available.
The petitioner failed to prove that she belongs to the "Tokre
Koli" tribe caste. The impugned judgment delivered by the
respondent No.2 is well reasoned order. There is no perversity
in the finding rendered by the respondent No.2. Thus, it is not
permissible for this Court to interfere with such findings of fact
in the writ petition. No interference is thus warranted.
73. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the petition. Ad-
interim relief, if any granted earlier, to continue for a period of
four (4) weeks. Rule is discharged.
74. No orders as to costs. Parties to act on the authenticated
copy of this order.
75. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
...
vmk/-
