Bombay High Court
Manisha Bhimrao Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 April, 2025
Author: R.G. Avachat
Bench: R.G. Avachat
2025:BHC-AUG:11302-DB
(1)
WP-8039.2006.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8039 OF 2006
Kum. Manisha d/o Bhimrao Thakur
Age : 23 yrs, occ : service
R/o 25-B, Nandanvan Bank Colony,
Near Nagsenvan High School Colony,
Deopur, Dhule Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary, Tribal
Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Verification Committee
Nasik Division, Nasik
Throuygh its Director
3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
Office of SDO,
Taloda, District Nandurbar.
4. The Collector,
Collectorate, Dhule Respondents
...
Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.
...
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 1 APRIL 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.G. AVACHAT, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard
finally with consent of the parties.
WP-8039.2006.odt
2. The petitioner, whose tribe validity has been
invalidated by the respondent Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, is before us taking exception thereto. The main
relief prayed in this writ petition is as under :
"B) To quash and set aside the order of
Committee dt. 28/6/2006 and declare that
petitioner belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe [as
claim of her real brother - Vishal S/o Bhimrao
Thakur has already been validated by Committee
vide order dt. 30/9/2003 and further direct
Committee to issue Caste Validity Certificate in
favour of petitioner within a stipulated period of
one month, by issuing appropriate writ, order or
directives, as the case may be.
C) To quash and set aside impugned decision
of Committee dt. 28/6/2006 and remand matter
to Committee for deciding tribe claim afresh, by
issuing appropriate writ, order or directives, as
the case may be"
3. The petitioner claims to have belonged to 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe. The Committee turned down his claim
mainly on the ground that he has not satisfied the affinity test.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner, relying on the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of A nand
vs Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and
ors., (2012) 1 SCC 113, contended that affinity test is not a
litmus test. According to him, the petitioner's brother Vishal
has been granted validity post the Maharashtra Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
WP-8039.2006.odt
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of)
Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short the Act of 2000) came
into force. It is not the case of the contesting respondent that
Vishal obtained validity by practicing fraud. His case has not
been reopened by issuing notice to him in that regard.
According to him, it would be illogical that both the siblings
would be of different caste/tribe to represent themselves in the
society at the same time. Since the real brother's validity has
stood scrutiny and the same has not been reopened, the
petitioner is entitled for grant of validity certificate at least
until the validity certificate of Vishal stands / holds the field.
4. To our pointed out query, the learned A.G.P. was
candid enough to concede that it is not their case that Vishal
has obtained validity by practicing fraud. His case has not
been reopened. He would, however, submit that there were
two issues in case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs State of
Maharashtra and others reported in (2009) 5 AIR Bom R 478
i.e. affinity test and mere documentary proof is not sufficient
to grant the claim of particular caste or tribe. According to
him, the said issue is still pending before the Apex Court. As
such, according to him, the appeal preferred against the
WP-8039.2006.odt
decision of this Court in case of Shilpa Thakur (supra) is still
sub-judice before the Apex Court.
5. Considered the submissions advnaced. Perused the
order impugned herein. The petitioner claimed to have
belonged to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The affinity test went
against him. The fact is, however, that the petitioner's real
brother, Vishal has been granted validity by the Committee on
30.01.2003 i.e. post the Act of 2000 came into force. It is not
the case of the Committee that Vishal practiced fraud and
obtained validity certificate.
6. Learned A.G.P. places on record the order dated
30.09.2003 wherein it has been observed that after giving full
hearing to Vishal and going through documentary evidence
placed before the Committee, the validity has been granted. It
appears that Vishal's validity stood to scrutiny by the Scrutiny
Committee and his case has not been reopened nor he seems
to have practiced fraud. The Scrutiny Committee ought to
have granted validity to the claim of petitioner herein. In this
regard, we rely on the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and others
reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401, wherein it has been observed
WP-8039.2006.odt
that, "where the caste claim of an applicant has been
scrutinized and accepted and one committee has given a
finding about the validity of the caste, another committee
ought not to refuse the same status to his/her blood relative
who applies"
7. In view of the same, the writ petition is allowed in
terms of the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.06.2006
passed by respondent No.2 the Scheduled
Caste Certificate Verification Committee is
quashed and set aside.
(iii) Respondent No.2 Scheduled Caste Certificate
Verification Committee is directed to issue
validity certificate of "Thakur" Scheduled
Tribe in favour of the petitioner forthwith.
(iv) The validity certificate to be issued to the
petitioner, shall be valid until the validity
certificate of Vishal remains valid.
WP-8039.2006.odt
(v) The petitioner shall not be entitled to claim
equities.
(vi) No order as to costs.
8. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT,J.)
VD_Dhirde
