Bombay High Court
Sandhya Bhanudas Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 13 March, 2023
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
75.6626.17-wp.docx
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
signed by
BASAVRAJ
BASAVRAJ GURAPPA
GURAPPA PATIL
PATIL Date:
2023.03.15
13:15:04
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 6626 OF 2017
Sandhya Bhanudas Thakur ..... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents
Mr. Sushant Yeramwar for the Petitioner
Mr. S. S. Panchpor with Mr. Saurabh Natu for Respondent No.4
Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for the State
CORAM: S.V.GANGAPURWALA, ACJ &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED : MARCH 13, 2023
P.C.
1. The caste claim of the Petitioner as Thakur is invalidated. The
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the same is
invalidated only on the ground of area restriction. Not a single
contra entry is noticed. Right from 1916 the school record of the
Petitioner's ancestors records the caste as Thakur. According to the
learned Counsel, when consistent documents exist, the affinity
cannot be given much importance. Reliance is placed on the
judgment of the apex court in the case of Anand Vs. Committee for
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Ors. (2012) 1 SCC
Basavraj 1/4
75.6626.17-wp.docx
2. The learned AGP submits that the Petitioner does not come
from the place where Thakur, Scheduled Tribe presently found. The
Petitioner also failed in the affinity test. While giving validity for the
real brother and the father of the Petitioner, the vigilance was not
conducted.
3. We have considered the documents:
v- dkxni=kps Lo:i dkxni=kojhy tekr fnukad vtZnkjk'kh 'ksjk
dz- O;Drhps ukao ukrs
1. tkr izek.ki= la/;k Hkkuqnkl fganq 20.02.1982 Lor%
Bkdwj Bkdwj
2. Xkkao uequk ua- jketh efgir Bkdwj 22.11.1951 pqyr
14 ¼e`R;w uksan½ vktksck
3. Xkkao uequk ua- efgir nsokth Bkdwj 18.09.1936 i.ktksck
14 ¼e`R;w uksan½
4. Xkkao uequk ua- lksek efgir Bkdwj 21.07.1947 pqyr
14 ¼e`R;w uksan½ vktksck
5. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk la/;k Hkkuqnkl Bkdwj 13.06.1977 Lor%
nk[kyk Bkdwj
6. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk Hkkuqnkl lksuw Bkdwj fganq 13.08.1946 oMhy
nk[kyk Bkdwj
7. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk fefyan Hkkuqnkl fganq 12.06.1972 HkkÅ
nk[kyk Bkdwj Bkdwj
8. tkr izek.ki= fefyan Hkkuqnkl fganq 17.08.1978 HkkÅ
Bkdwj Bkdwj
9. vfiy vkns'k fefyan Hkkuqnkl Bkdwj 17.09.1981 HkkÅ
Bkdwj
10. tkr izek.ki= Hkkuqnkl lksuw Bkdwj fganq 10.06.1982 oMhy
Bkdwj
11. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk ckcwjko efgir Bkdwj 13.10.1916 pqyr
nk[kyk Bkdwj vktksck
12. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk Hkksykjke foJke fganw 18.06.1960 pqyr dkdk
nk[kyk lkGwa[ks Bkdwj
13. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk foJke efgir Bkdwj Bkdwj 17.04.1924 pqyr
nk[kyk vktksck
14. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk nRrk=; lksek Bkdwj 11.06.1941 pqyr dkdk
nk[kyk lkGwa[ks
Basavraj 2/4
75.6626.17-wp.docx
15. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk /kuflax lksuw Bkdwj fganw 09.07.1950 dkdk
nk[kyk Bkdwj
16. e`R;w uksan jft"Vj /kuflax lksuw Bkdwj &&& 24.01.1986 dkdk
mrkjk
17. tkr izek.ki= ;'koar jketh Bkdwj 16.09.1999 pqyr dkdk
lkGwads
18. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk dkf'kukFk jketh fganw 02.06.1945 pqyr dkdk
nk[kyk lkGwa[ks Bkdwj
19. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk dksdhGk jketh fganw 09.06.1955 pqyr vkR;k
nk[kyk lkGwa[ks Bkdwj
20. oS/krk izek.ki= lat; ;'koar Bkdwj 02.05.2005 pqyr HkkÅ
lkGwa[ks
21. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk lat; ;'koar Bkdwj 14.06.1982 pqyr HkkÅ
nk[kyk lkGwa[ks
22. tkr izek.ki= lat; ;'koar Bkdwj 11.05.2000 pqyr HkkÅ
lkGwa[ks
23. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk vk'kkckbZ ;'koar fganw 17.12.1974 pqyr vkR;k
nk[kyk lkGwads Bkdwj
24. 'kiFki= ¼oS/krk½ lat; ;'koar &&& 09.02.2010 pqyr HkkÅ
lkGwa[ks
25. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk jes'k jked`".k fganw 12.06.1961 ekek
nk[kyk Bkdwj Bkdwj
26. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk jked`".k /kuth Bkdwj 03.06.1920 vktksck
nk[kyk Bkdwj ¼vkbZ dMhy½
27. vfiy vkns'k Hkkuqnkl lksuw Bkdwj &&& 23.12.1983 oMhy
28. 'kkGk lksMY;kpk ;'koar jketh fganw 09.06.1959 pqyr dkdk
nk[kyk lkGwa[ks Bkdwj
29. nk[kyk ¼izkpk;Z½ Hkkuqnkl lksuw Bkdwj fganw 21.02.1992 oMhy
Bkdwj
30. Xkkao uequk ua- lksuw efgir Bkdwj 24.09.1937 vktksck
14 ¼tUe uksan½
31. vksG[ki= ¼v/;{k la/;k Hkkuqnkl Bkdwj 31.08.2012 Lor%
Bkdwj tekrlsok Bkdwj
eaMG½
32. U;k;ky;hu fu.kZ; &&& &&& &&& &&&
4. It would appear that in case of the Petitioner's great
grandfather, the death certificate of the year 1936 records the caste
"Thakur". The death certificate of the grandfather of the Petitioner
Ramji of the year 1951 records the caste "Thakur". The school
Basavraj 3/4
75.6626.17-wp.docx
record of the Petitioner's cousin grandfather Baban of the year 1916
records the caste "Thakur". School record of the Petitioner's cousin
Dattatraya of the year 1931 records the caste as "Thakur". There
are many pre-independence era documents to show that the caste of
Petitioner as "Thakur". Not a single contra entry exists. Affinity
test is not a litmus test as held in the case of Anand (supra).
5. Considering that the cousin brother of the Petitioner viz.
Sanjay is issued with the validity certificate after conducting of the
vigilance so also validity issued to the real brother and father of the
Petitioner and the fact that not a single contra entry exists, we set
aside the judgment of the Committee.
6. The Committee shall issue validity certificate to the Petitioner
of "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe within 15 days. Necessary
consequential benefit shall follow.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Basavraj 4/4
