Bombay High Court
Sauravkumar S/O. Sunilkumar Katole vs The S. T. Caste Certificate Scrutiny ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:7750-DB
wp 7257-2024.odt 1/21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.7256/2024
Sauravkumar s/o Sunilkumar Katole,
Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student,
R/o Post Dhanki, Tq. Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
The Schedule Tribe Caste
Certified Scrutiny Committee,
through its Member Secretary
and Deputy Director, Sai Uttam
Villa No.3, near Rangoli Ground,
Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal - 445001.
...RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7257/2024
Sunilkumar s/o Madhukar Katole,
Aged about 50 years, Occ. Service,
R/o at & Post Dhanki, Tq. Umarkhed,
District Yavatmal.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Schedule Tribe Caste
Certified Scrutiny Committee,
through its Member Secretary
and Deputy Director, Sai Uttam
Villa No.3, near Rangoli Ground,
Shastri Nagar, Yavatmal - 445001.
wp 7257-2024.odt 2/21
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
3. The Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Anil Mardikar, Senior Advocate a/w Shri Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for
petitioners
Shri P.P. Pendke, AGP for respondent/State in both petitions
Shri V.M. Kulsange, Advocate for respondent No.3 in W.P. No. 7257/2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, AND
SHRI. PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ..
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT: 17.07.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 07.08.2025
JUDGMENT (PER SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.
2. Writ Petition No. 7256/2024 is filed by Sauravkumar
Sunilkumar Katole whilst Writ Petition No. 7257/2024 is filed by
Sunilkumar Madhukar Katole. Petitioners in both the petitions are
son and father respectively. Since Writ Petition No. 7256/2024 is
taken as lead Petition, the facts and contentions of the said Writ
Petition are referred herein below for deciding the issue involved in
both the Writ Petitions. Moreover, documents relied on are also
same.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.10.2023 passed
by the Respondent- Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal (hereinafter to be referred as the said
'Committee') invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner for 'Halbi'
Scheduled Tribe Category and ultimately cancelling and
confiscating the Caste Certificate dated 18.09.2019 issued by the
office of Sub Divisional Officer, Umarkhed.
4. The petitioners are son and father. The petitioner
belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe, which is recognized as
Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra and is included at Sr.
No. 19 of the Constitutional Scheduled Tribe Order, 1950. On
18.09.2019, the petitioner had obtained a caste certificate of 'Halbi'
which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe from competent authority-
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Umarkhed.
5. The petitioner is a student and has completed his 12th
Standard from, Sant Tukaram National Model School, Latur. As the
admission of petitioner was in Scheduled Tribe Category, the claim
for verification was forwarded to respondent Committee through
the Principal, Sant Tukaram National Model School, Latur, vide
letter dated 06.12.2021. The petitioner also filled an online
application form for verification on 30.12.2021 and along with the
said form, the petitioner also submitted all the relevant documents
in support of his claim.
6. On 22.08.2023, the respondent Committee sent a copy
of show cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of Police
Vigilance Report of the petitioner to give his reply on the said notice
and to appear before the committee on 24.08.2023. The petitioner
appeared before the Committee on 11.09.2023 for hearing and also
gave his reply on the Vigilance Report. The petitioner has given his
explanation on the documents, which were exhibited with the
report. The petitioner has specifically denied the documents of
"KOSHTI" as they are not from the family.
7. On 12.09.2023, again the respondent Committee sent a
show cause notice to the petitioner and asked to remain present for
hearing on 21.09.2023. The petitioner accordingly, appeared before
the Committee on 21.09.2023 and again submitted his detailed
reply.
8. The petitioner's father - Sunilkumar Madhukar Katole
& his uncle Dhananjay Madhukar Katole has obtained SBC Caste
Certificate and validity certificate. The petitioner has already given
his explanation towards these findings that, petitioner's father has
already surrendered SBC Caste Certificate by way of an affidavit
dated 25.06.2021 and petitioner's uncle has obtained the SBC
Validity Certificate in pursuance of the Government Resolution
dated 15.06.1995 at the relevant time.
9. The petitioner's uncle's caste claim was invalidated
belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe category on 15.05.2000 and
the same was invalidated by the Committee.
10. The petitioner's real brother has been granted validity
by this Court belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe category vide
order dated 06.08.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 5098 of 2019
and on the basis of the said validity the petitioner is also eligible to
get the validity certificate.
11. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Anil Mardikar for
petitioner relied on following citations :
i) Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326
ii) Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims and others reported in 2011 (6) Mh.L.J.
iii) Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others reported in 2010 (6) Mh.L.J.
iv) Mangesh s/o Panditrao Thakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribe Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai through its
Secretary in Writ Petition NO.14111 of 2021 and other connected
matters of this Court at Aurangabad Bench.
v) Nishant s/o Sudhir Narnaware Vs. The
Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and another in Writ
Petition No.1218 of 2023 of this Court.
vi) Ashok s/o Madhav Ingle and another Vs. The Vice-Chairman/
Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal and others in Writ Petition No.8261 of 2023
of this Court.
vii) Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificates
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and others, 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180.
12. It is the contention of the respondent that in the
present case the petitioner has failed to prove the Scheduled Tribe
claim of 'Halbi', which was referred for verification to Scrutiny
Committee. In order to substantiate the claim, the petitioner has
submitted various documents. The oldest documents of dated
26.06.1942, 25.05.1950, 29.01.1938, 05.03.1936, illegible
(.09.1944) and illegible (.06.1915) relied by petitioner are of Mauje
Fulsawangi Tq. Mahagaon Dist. Yavatmal.
13. It is further contended that, petitioner has raised a
ground that, that petitioner produced in all six documents serially
listed in the petition and genuineness, authenticity and existence of
these documents has neither been gone into by the committee, the
Scrutiny Committee evaluated the documentary evidence submitted
by the petitioner and procured by the vigilance cell and after
granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner came to the
conclusion that the petitioner has failed to substantiate that he
belongs to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee,
therefore, by order dated 31.10.2023 invalidated the tribe claim of
the petitioner belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The order dated
31.10.2023 is a well-reasoned and justifiable order and needs to be
maintained by this Court. Apart from the above stated, the
petitioner failed to substantiate the ground raised in the petition.
14. The learned AGP relied on Pranav Sadashiv Lad Vs.
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur and others in Writ
Petition No.12713 of 2022 of this Court at Principal Seat.
15. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the impugned
order documents placed on record and considered the citations
relied on by the parties. In order to establish cast claim of 'Halbi',
the petitioner placed on record as many as eighteen documents, out
of them following are the documents prior to cut of date.
Sr.No. Copy of Documents Caste/Tribe Date Annex
No.
1. Copy of School Record of the Halbi 26.06.1942 16
petitioner's Cousin Grandfather
(Bhagwan Govinda)
Certificate of the petitioner's
Grandfather (Madev Alias
Madhukar son of Govinda
Narayan Halbi)
Certificate of the petitioner's
cousin Grandfather (Namdev
alias Ram-son of Govinda
Narayan Halbi)
Certificate of the petitioner's
cousin Grandfather (Bhagwan -
son of Govnida Narayan Halbi)
Certificate of the petitioner's
cousin Grandfather (Maroti son
of Govinda Narayan Halbi)
Certificate of the petitioner's
Great Great Grandfather
(Narayan Halbi)
16. In these documents relatives from paternal side of the
petitioner shown as 'Halbi'. It is a matter of record that real brother,
Someshkumar Sunilkumar Katole of the petitioner was granted
validity by the Scrutiny Committee, which is produced by the
petitioner (page 245 Annexure - 7). It was issued on 07/08/2019.
The same was issued by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati. On perusal of impugned order dated
31/10/2023, it appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee heavily
relied on the certificate of 'Halba Koshti' belonging to SBC of the
father of the petitioner. In this regard there is no consideration what
is reply/explanation given by the petitioner. It is a matter of record
that petitioner's father Sunilkumar Madhukar Katole and his uncle
Dhananjay Madhukarrao Katole had obtained SBC caste certificate
and validity certificate. Petitioner's father has already surrendered
the SBC caste certificate by way of an affidavit dated 25/06/2021
and he has made clear that he has not obtained any benefits on the
basis of that certificate and petitioner's uncle has obtained the SBC
validity certificate in pursuance of the Government Resolution
dated 07/12/1994 and 13/06/1995 at the relevant time.
Thereafter, 17/12/1998 'Halba' was deleted from Special Backward
Classes.
17. It is also mentioned in the affidavit of Sunilkumar,
father of petitioner that he has not only surrendered the validity
certificate belonging to SBC but also not availed any benefit on the
basis of said certificate. Now three questions are required to be
answered. Initially uncle of the petitioner had obtained the caste
certificate belonging to SBC. Caste validity claim of the uncle of the
petitioner came to be rejected on 15/05/2000 and same was
challenged in the Writ Petition No. 2627/2000. In the said writ
petition, the matter was remanded back to the Committee, again on
30/09/2002, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of
the petitioner belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe category and the
said second invalidation order was not challenged by the
petitioner's uncle, due to his own reasons. The Caste Scrutiny
Committee heavily relied on this rejection of claim of uncle of the
petitioner. Secondly Caste Scrutiny Committee relied on the sale-
deeds executed by the relatives of the petitioner, wherein, they have
stated that they are not belonging to Scheduled Tribe.
18. In explanation (page 637), the petitioner has made
clear that the documents procured by the Vigilance Cell at Sr. No. 1
in respect of Bhagwan Govinda dated 26/06/1942, is the school
declaration showing caste 'Koshti Halbi', whereas, document No. 2,
which is admission register, wherein, caste is shown as 'Halbi' of
same Bhagwan Govinda. It is submitted that the document at Sr.
No.1 which is the declaration which ought not to have considered
but the document at Sr. No. 2, which is admit cancel register needs
to be considered. If report of the Vigilance Cell is perused, the
document produced by the petitioner were verified by the Vigilance
Cell in respect of birth of Bhagwan to the Govinda Narayan Halbi,
the entry dated 05/03/1936 page 272 is verified. Similarly, there is
entry of 29/09/1944 showing caste 'Halbi' in which Govinda shown
as gave birth to Maroti. There is another document of 1915,
wherein, caste is shown as 'Halbi', wherein it is shown that Narayan
gave birth to one female child. In the said Vigilance Cell report in
the remark column in respect of this 1915 entry, it is referred that
record is in dilapidated condition. The documents procured by the
Vigilance Cell as referred above in respect of Bhagwan Govinda,
school record of 1942 shows entry by caste 'Halbi'. All other entries
of 'Koshti' pertaining to the documents were collected those are
subsequent to 1950. Therefore, these documents cannot be
considered for deciding caste validity of the petitioner belonging to
'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. Documents of 1936 and 1944, of which,
due verification is carried out are not disputed. While collecting
genealogy, wherein, it is mentioned that Govinda Narayan Halbi is
having son Ram alias Namdeo. The documents which was placed on
record by the petitioner is dated 09/02/1938. The relevant
document is placed on record (page 271). There was no reason to
disbelieve these documents only on the ground that Ram is not
reflected and Ram and Namdeo is one and the same person. As
name of father of Namdeo i.e. Govinda Narayan Halbi resident of
Fulsawangi, is mentioned in the said document and date of birth is
shown as 29/01/1938 and as family tree is not disputed, the
Scrutiny Committee has recorded perverse finding.
19. Needless to mention here that real brother of the
petitioner is already granted validity of 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe in
pursuance to the order of this Court dated 06/08/2019 in Writ
Petition No. 5098/2019. There is no dispute about the family tree.
Someshkumar is the real brother of the petitioner. While deciding
that petition all these documents are considered. It is held by this
Court that Govinda Narayan is admittedly a great grand father of
the petitioner. The genuineness of this document is not disputed.
The documents by and large, disclosed the social status of the
persons mentioned therein as 'Halbi' tribe. It appears that Caste
Scrutiny Committee discarded the document dated 26/06/1942, in
respect of Bhagwan Govinda on the ground that in the school
record in the declaration his caste is shown as 'Koshti Halbi',
whereas, in the admit cancel register dated 06/06/1942, there is
entry of caste as 'Halbi'. It is the contention of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee that the entry in admit cancel register ought to be as per
affidavit and it appears that 'Halbi' entry is not as per affidavit and
it is entered into to get benefit of the said entry. It is very surprising
that Caste Scrutiny Committee has failed to appreciate that the
entry is of 1942 and there is no reason whatsoever to enter in the
school record as 'Halbi' as on that date forefathers of petitioner
were not aware that 'Halbi' will be included in Scheduled Tribe
order after 1950. In fact, the document which was collected by the
Vigilance Cell about declaration in the school is concerned,
admittedly, the father of the Bhagwan namely Govinda is
uneducated person as his thumb impression is there and most
important is that it is declaration to the effect that the father
Govinda gave date of birth on affidavit of his child. On perusal of
that declaration, it is clear that there is no column of caste. As such,
objection to consider this document is unsustainable, specifically,
when, there are earlier entries of 1915, 1944, 1936, 1938,
22/06/1945, showing caste 'Halbi' of the blood relatives of the
petitioner and those were not discussed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee.
20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on
Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra), wherein,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under in paragraph No. 38 as
under:
"38. Thus, to conclude, we hold that :
(a) Only when the Scrutiny Committee after holding an
enquiry is not satisfied with the material produced by
the applicant, the case can be referred to Vigilance Cell.
While referring the case to Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny
Committee must record brief reasons for coming to the
conclusion that it is not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant. Only after a case is referred
to the Vigilance Cell for making enquiry, an occasion for
the conduct of affinity test will arise.
(b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test
cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is
conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test
along with all other material on record having probative
value will have to be taken into consideration by the
Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim;
and
(c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a
caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of
the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim
in every case."
21. It is one of the contention that the caste certificate was
invalidated in respect of uncle of the petitioner i.e. Dhananjay
Katole. However, he has not challenged the same. Therefore, it has
attained finality.
22. Learned Counsel for petitioner relied on Mangesh s/o
Panditrao Thakur (supra), wherein, this Court held in paragraph
No. 13 as under :
"13. True it is that there is an invalidation of Jyoti
Narayan Vishve's certificate and the order has attained
finality right up to the Supreme Court. However, we
have been consistently holding that the decision of the
scrutiny committee would only bind the claimant and
would not bind the blood relatives, for the simple reason
that they are not parties to such adjudication and that a
blood relative may be able to substantiate his claim by
leading cogent and relevant evidence sufficient enough
to discharge the burden cast upon him under section 8
of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001."
23. It is finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee
that some of the blood relatives obtained caste certificate as
belonging to Special Backward Classes.
24. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Nishant
s/o Sudhir Narnaware, (supra), wherein, in the matter of 'Mana'
Scheduled Tribe, which was earlier in Special Backward Classes and
subsequently it was removed therefrom and included in the
category of Scheduled Tribe. In such circumstances, the petitioner
therein was granted validity certificate belonging to Scheduled
Tribe. In the present matter in view of position then existing 'Halba',
'Halba Koshti' were enlisted in Special Backward Classes,
subsequently they were removed.
25. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader that the Caste Scrutiny Committee specifically relied on the
sale-deeds executed by the persons in blood relations of the
petitioner, wherein, they have stated that they do not belong to
Scheduled Tribe. In this regard petitioner in reply denied their
relationship. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Writ Petition No.
8261/2023, Ashok s/o Madhav Ingle and another (supra), wherein,
this aspect is considered. In present matter, the documents in which
the parties have mentioned that they do not belong to Scheduled
Tribe have not specifically mentioned any other caste or tribe to
which they belong. Moreover, these documents are ranging from
2005 to 2020. These documents will never prevail over the pre
constitutional documents, wherein, caste of the forefathers of the
petitioner is shown as 'Halbi', such statement made in these
documents clearly indicate that either they are not in relation of
petitioner or it is made with an intention to avail permission from
the Collector to sell the land. Thus, this cannot be the ground not to
consider pre-constitutional documents having great probative value.
26. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance
on Anand (supra), wherein, Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraph
No. 18 sub Clause (ii) as under:
"18...........
(i)..........
(ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the
ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a
cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades
ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the
cultural development happening around them, the
affinity test could serve as a determinative factor.
However, with the migrations, modernisation and
contact with other communities, these communities tend
to develop and adopt new traits which may not
essentially match with the traditional characteristics of
the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as a
litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with
a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an
applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is
entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per
se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits
do not match his tribes' peculiar anthropological and
ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of
marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead
bodies etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to
corroborate the documentary evidence and should not
be the sole criteria to reject a claim."
27. As real brother of petitioner was granted validity in
pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that in view of the judgment of Apoorva
d/o Vinay Nichale (supra), the certificate needs to be issued in
favour of the petitioner, specifically when it is duly established by
producing old documents on record prior to 1950, showing tribe of
the forefathers of the petitioner as 'Halbi'. This Court in the matter
held as under :
"9. ...In the circumstances, we are of the view that the
committee which has expressed a doubt about the
validity of caste claim of the petitioner and has
described it as a mistake in its order, ought not to have
arrived at a different conclusion. The matters pertaining
to validity of caste have a great impact on the candidate
as well as on the future generations in many matters
varying from marriage to education and enjoyment, and
therefore where a Committee has given a finding about
the validity of the caste of a candidate another
committee ought not to refuse the same status to a blood
relative who applies. A merely different view on the
same facts would not entitle the committee dealing with
the subsequent caste claim to reject it. There is, however,
no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is
of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by
fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste
validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste
claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for
cancellation of the earlier order."
28. Similarly, petitioner placed reliance on judgment in
Priya Pravin Parate (supra), as the Committee has disbelieved the
documents on the basis of entry 'Halbi Koshti', this Court in
paragraph No. 10 held as under:
"10. Insofar as the reliance on some of the entries
pertaining to petitioners relatives from paternal side
showing caste to be 'Koshti' on which Mr. Deshpande,
learned Counsel relies, are concerned, perusal of the
said document would reveal that though the caste of the
said person is written as Koshti, the profession is also
shown as weaving. As can be seen from the Gazetteer of
Amravati District, that Halbi's in erstwhile Ellichpur and
Anjangaon Surji in Daryapur Taluq in Amravati District
were also engaged in the profession of weaving. It is
common knowledge that persons engaged in the
profession of weaving were called as "Koshti". A
possibility cannot be ruled out that due to this, said
entries might have recorded. It is also relevant to refer to
some portion from the authority of R.V. Russell on Tribes
and Castes of the Central Provinces of India, published
in 1916, wherein while dealing with the Halba Tribe, it
has been stated that "Some of these soldiers may have
migrated west and taken service under the Gond Kings
of Chanda, and their descendants may now be
represented by the Bhandara Zamindars, who, however,
if this theory be correct, have entirely forgotten their
origin. Others took up weaving and have become
amalgamated with the Koshti caste in Bhandara and
Berar.'"
29. This Court placed reliance on the Authority of R.V.
Russell on tribe. Thus, considering the documents, law position, we
are of the considered opinion that the petitioners have duly
established that they belong to tribe 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. Thus,
impugned orders being perverse, arbitrary and unsustainable and
are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following
order :
ORDER
i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
ii) Impugned orders dated 31/10/2023, in Case Nos.
11/510/Edu/122021/37 (Sauravkumar Sunilkumar
Katole) and Case No. 5-ST/2/012/10796 (Sunilkumar
Madhukar Katole), passed by the Scheduled Tribe
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, are
hereby quashed and set aside.
iii) It is declared that petitioners have duly
established that they belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled
Tribe.
iv) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Yavatmal, to issue validity certificate to
the petitioners as they belong to 'Halbi' Scheduled
Tribe, within a period of two weeks.
v) The petitioners are at liberty to rely on the
judgment of this Court, if necessary, till issuance of
validity certificate by the respondent, the Scheduled
Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Jayashree..
