Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Sudhakar S/O Sheshrao Choudhary vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2538 Bom

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 2538 Bom
Judgement Date : 15 March, 2022

Bombay High Court
Sudhakar S/O Sheshrao Choudhary vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 15 March, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
                                                                 927judwp 1716.2017.odt
                                           1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                       Writ Petition (WP) No. 1716/2017

         Sudhakar s/o Sheshrao Choudhary
         Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student,
         R/o. R/o. Wirkhed, Post. Watkhed(Bk),
         Tah. Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal.                     ..... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

1.       The State of Maharashtra
         through its Secretary,
         Department of Tribal Development,
         Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

2.       The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
         Scrutiny Committee through
         its Chairman, Irwin Chowk,
         Amravati Division, Amravati.                       .... RESPONDENT(S)

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

Shri Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Hemlata Jaipurkar, AGP for the respondents

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

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.J.

DATED : 15/03/2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order

dated 09.01.2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate

Scrutiny Committee, Amravati invalidating the tribe claim of the

petitioner of belonging to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the

petitioner is based on various pre-costitutional documents with the entry

SMGate 927judwp 1716.2017.odt

"Mana". The Scrutiny Committee has proceeded to invalidate the claim

of the petitioner principally on the grounds that in the old entries the

words "Scheduled Tribe" are not mentioned and that the petitioner was

not able to establish affinity with Mana community.

2. Shri Ananta Ramteke, learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the old records were produced by the petitioner which

were also verified by the Scrutiny Committee pertaining to the year 1934

and onwards. All these documents record the entry "Mana" and the same

had been verified by the Vigilance Cell. Merely because the words

"Scheduled Tribe" were not stated against these entries, same would not

be a reason to disallow the petitioner's claim. He further submitted that

the old documents prior to 1950 have great probative value and when

such documents are available the claim could not have been rejected

only by relying upon the affinity test. The learned Counsel placed

reliance on the decision in Gajanan s/o Pandurang Shende Vs. Head-

Master, Govt. Ashram School, Dongargaon Salod and others [2018(2)

Mh.L.J. 460] as well as the judgment dated 24.02.2020 in Writ Petition

No. 6711/2018 (Mr. Sandeep Shatrughan Dharne Vs. The Commissioner,

Tribal Research and Training Institute and ors. ). It was thus submitted

that the order of the Scrutiny Committee was liable to be set aside.

SMGate 927judwp 1716.2017.odt

3. On the other hand, Ms. Hemlata Jaipurkar, learned Assistant

Government Pleader for the respondents supported the impugned order.

It was submitted that in the absence of the petitioner indicating affinity

to "Mana" Scheduled Tribe the claim of the petitioner was not liable to

be upheld. It would not be permissible merely on the basis of old

documents to accept the status of the petitioner as claimed by him. It

was thus submitted that there was no reason to interfere with the order

passed by the Scrutiny Committee.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we

have perused the documents placed on record. A perusal of the report of

the Vigilance Cell dated 30.10.2010 indicates that in all the pre-

constitutional documents entry "Mana" has been shown. There is no

document bearing any contrary entry. The old documents relied are of

the years 1919, 1933, 1935 and 1945. All consistent entries therein

indicate that the forefathers of the petitioner belong to "Mana"

Scheduled Tribe. The Scheduled Tribe Order having came into force in

the year 1950 there was no occasion to mention the caste/tribe in the

documents prior to coming into force of the Constitution (Scheduled

Tribes) Order, 1950. It is thus found that these pre-consitutional

documents carry greater probative value.

SMGate 927judwp 1716.2017.odt

5. In so far as affinity test is concerned, we find that the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny

and Verification of Tribe Claims [2011(6) Mh.L.J. 919] has held that

higher degree of probative value ought to be given to old documents and

in such cases the affinity test cannot be regarded as the litmus test for

establishing the link to the claimant with Scheduled Tribe only.

Aforesaid decisions have been considered by this Court in Gajanan s/o

Pandurang Shende and Mr. Sandeep Shatrughan Dharne (supra). Thus,

merely on the basis of the affinity test the claim of the petitioner was not

liable to be rejected. We therefore find that the Scrutiny Committee

committed an error in invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the following order:-

i. The order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste

Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati on 09.01.2015 is

set aside.

ii. It is declared that the petitioner belongs to "Mana"

Scheduled Tribe which is Entry No. 18 of the Constitution

(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950.

iii. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue Validity

Certificate to the petitioner within a period of four weeks

SMGate 927judwp 1716.2017.odt

from the production of this order.

7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

8. Civil Application (CAW) No. 481/2022 is disposed of.

                             JUDGE                          JUDGE




          Digitally signed
          by SANDIP
SANDIP    MAHADEV
          GATE
MAHADEV   Date:
GATE      2022.03.17
          17:38:57
          +0530




SMGate
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter