[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ku. Shivani Datta Parate vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 8 December, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:13829-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1712 OF 2021
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6319 OF 2018
WRIT PETITION NO. 1712 OF 2021
Ramesh S/o Laxman Parate,
Aged about 48 years, Occ. Corporator,
R/o At Post- Dhanki,
Tah. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) Joint Commissioner and Vice-Chairman,
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, B-wing, 1st Floor,
Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Social Justice
Deptt. Camp Road, Amravati - 444606..
2) Collector, Yavatmal. .... RESPONDENTS
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6319 OF 2018
Ku. Shivani Datta Parate,
Aged about 18 years, Occ. Student,
R/o At Post- Dhanki, Tq. Umarkhed,
Dist. Yavatmal. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
Judgment 2 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
2) Deputy Director and Member
Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. R. Narnaware, Advocate for Petitioner in
W.P. No.1712/2021.
Mr. J. S. Wankhede, Advocate for Petitioner in
W.P. No.6319/2018.
Mrs. S. S. Jachak, Additional Government Pleader for
Respondents in both petitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 10.11.2025
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 08.12.2025
COMMON JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission
by consent of the parties and at the request of parties.
2. As both the Petitioners are relative, both the
Petitions are taken up to decide together by a common
judgment.
3. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 1712/2021 is the Uncle of
the Petitioner in W.P. No. 6319/2018. The Petitioners by these
Judgment 3 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
petitions are challenging the orders dated 26.03.2021 and
03.08.2018, passed by the Respondent Caste Scrutiny
Committee, Amravati, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the
Petitioners to the 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribes, which is enlisted at
Sr. No. 19 of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 for the state of
Maharashtra.
4. The Petitioner in W. P. No. 1712/2021 was elected as
Corporator from the Dhanki Nagar Panchayat, District Yavatmal
against a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. The
Petitioner has submitted his caste claim to the Respondent Caste
Scrutiny Committee for verification on 07.12.2019. The
Petitioner has submitted the documents of his father and
forefathers pertaining to the pre-independence period belonging
to Halbi Scheduled Tribe and also placed on record a family tree
showing the relationship with the said persons. The Police
Vigilance Cell conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to
the Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee on 25.02.2021. The
Petitioner has given his detailed explanation to the said vigilance
report on 05.03.2021 and denied the contentions of the said
report. The Petitioner earlier has approached to this Court by
Judgment 4 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
filing a Writ Petition No. 2212/2020, for issuance of directions
to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim and
accordingly, this Court disposed off the said petition on
11.09.2020 by issuing directions to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to decide the claim of the Petitioner within four
months. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has not decided the
claim of the Petitioner on stipulated period, so the Petitioner has
also filed Contempt Petition No. 27/2021. When the contempt
petition was listed before this Court on 31.3.2021, the learned
Counsel for the Scrutiny Committee has made a statement that
the invalidation order was passed on 26.03.2021 and therefore,
the contempt petition was dropped, which order is challenged in
this petition. It is worthwhile to note here that the Respondent
No. 2 Collector in W. P. No. 1712/2021 vide its order dated
28.07.2021 disqualified the Petitioner from the post of
Councilor, Nagar Panchayat, Dhanki with retrospective effect
from the date of election i.e. 30.12.2019, for not submitting the
caste validity certificate within prescribed period of 12 months.
5. The Petitioner in W. P. No. 6319/2018, after passing
out her S.S.C. examination took admission in Shri Sant
Judgment 5 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
Gadgebaba Vimukta Jati Bhatkya Jamati Madhyamik and Uccha
Madhyamik (Kala/Vigyan) Ashram School, Dhanki, Tq.
Umarkhed, District Yavatmal under Scheduled Tribe category.
When the Petitioner studying in 12 th standard, the Principal of
said college by his letter dated 27.01.2018 referred the caste
claim of the Petitioner for verification of her tribe claim as
"Halbi" Scheduled Tribe to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The
Petitioner has submitted the documents of her father and
forefathers pertaining to the pre-independence period belonging
to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe, which is having great probative
value. After forwarding the caste claim of the Petitioner for
verification, she has passed out the 12th standard from above
college, but for the medical entrance, she has taken gap of one
year for succeeding the said medical exam. The Caste Scrutiny
Committee served on the Petitioner the Police Vigilance Cell
Report vide show cause Notice dated 30.07.2018 and the
Petitioner filed her reply to the said notice on 02.08.2018 and
denied the said vigilance report. The Caste Scrutiny Committed
vide its order dated 03.08.2018 invalidated the caste claim of
Judgment 6 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
the Petitioner only on the ground of migration, affinity test,
which is challenged by this petition.
6. In support of their tribe claim, the Petitioners have
submitted following documents of pre-constitutional period:
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Birth record of a Male child (Harbaji) Haalbi 31.05.1941
born to Maroti Aambu Haalbi
2 Birth record of a Male child (Namdeo) Haalbi 23.03.1944
born to Maroti Aambu Halbi
3 School record of Laxman Maroti Parate Halbi 12.06.1950
4 School record of Laxman Maroti Parate Halba 10.07.1956
(Hindu)
5 Birth record of a male child born to Haalbi 1947
Aambu Haalbi (Great Grandfather)
7. The Petitioners further contended that in spite of old
documents of 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe and no contra evidence
was produced by the Vigilance Cell, the caste claim of the
Petitioners were invalidated violating the principles laid down in
Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims and others, (2012) 1 SCC 113 . The Petitioners further
submitted that their claims are squarely covered by the above
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Judgment 7 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners relied on the
following citations :
(i) Writ Petition No. 7256/2024, Sauravkumar s/o
Sunilkumar Katole Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal with one
connected matter, dated 07.08.2025 and
(ii) Priya Pramod Gajbe Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others, reported in 2023 LawSuit(SC) 816.
9. Per Contra, the learned Additional Government
Pleader for the Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee in W. P.
No. 1712/2021 contended that, there are discrepancies in the
documents submitted by the Petitioner relating to the date of
birth of father of the Petitioner and further the Petitioner has not
submitted any corroborative documents, so also in the vigilance
nothing has been procured in reference with documents
submitted by the Petitioner.
10. The Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee, in its
Reply in respect to the W.P. No. 6319/2018, has relied on the
following documents, which are adverse to the claim of the
Petitioner:
Judgment 8 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
Sr. Document Name Relationship with Caste Date
No. Type the petitioner
1 An extract of Maroti Aabu Great Grandfather Halbi 1944
School
admission
register entry
2 An extract of Shivani Self Halba 2007
School Datta Parate
admission
register entry
3 An extract of Laxman Grandfather Halba 1956
School Maroti Hindu
admission Parate
register entry
11. It is the contention of the Respondent Caste Scrutiny
Committee that the Petitioners failed to prove Socio-cultural
Affinity with the 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe and therefore the
impugned orders dated 26.03.2021 and 03.08.2018 are well
reasoned and justifiable. The learned Additional Government
Pleader placed reliance on Writ Petition No.10827/2023,
(Priyanka D/o Dilip Rekulwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
another), dated 20.09.2023.
12. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance
of the learned Additional Government Pleader and considered
the citations relied upon by the Petitioner.
Judgment 9 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
13. The Petitioner placed on record around six
documents, out of which some documents are from the period
prior to 1950 showing caste as 'Halbi', 'Haalbi', 'Halba' and
'Haalba'. These documents were rejected by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee on the ground that in List of Scheduled Tribes, tribe
is written as 'Halba' and 'Halbi' and not 'Haalba' and 'Haalbi'.
Admittedly, there are no castes as 'Haalbi' and 'Haalba'. It is also
observed by the Scrutiny Committee that ordinary place of
residence of the Petitioner is of Dhanki, Tah. Umarkhed, District
Yavatmal, which is not a habitation area of Halba and Halbi
Scheduled Tribe. It is further contention that invalidation of the
caste claim of Sandip Subhash Parate is confirmed up to the
Hon'ble Apex Court. In this regard, we have directed the learned
Additional Government Pleader to procure the record of Sandip
Subhash Parate. On perusal of said record, it is found that the
oldest document of 1918 was not before the Scrutiny
Committee, while rejecting the caste claim of Sandip Subhash
Parate. It is settled position of law that the decision of the
Scrutiny Committee would only bind the claimant and would
not bind the blood relatives as they are not parties to such
Judgment 10 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
adjudication and the person before the Scrutiny Committee may
be able to substantiate his claim by leading cogent and relevant
evidence sufficient enough to discharge the burden cast upon
him. It would be beneficial to quote the Judgment in Writ
Petition No. 14111/2021, (Mangesh S/o Panditrao Thakur vs.
State of Maharashtra), dated 12/03/2025 with connected
matter, wherein in para 13, it is held 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."
14. The learned Additional Government Pleader fairly
conceded that the document of 1918 was not there on the
record of Caste Scrutiny Committing while deciding the claim of
Sandip Subhash Parate. It is also the contention of the learned
Additional Government Pleader that in the family tree given by
Judgment 11 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
the father of the Petitioner, there is no name of Shivani,
however, there is a name given as Ramesh Laxman Parate, who
is uncle of the Petitioner. Even if, name of Shivani is not
appearing in the family tree given by the Laxman Parate,
however, her father's name Datta is appearing. The Caste
Scrutiny Committee recorded perverse finding that 'Halba' and
'Halbi' were not resident of Umerkhed, District Yavatmal. The
Scrutiny Committee failed to appreciate that area restriction is
already removed by the State vide Order in the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976'
(Act No. 108 of 1976) which was published in the Gazette on
20.09.1976 and also in view of the Judgment in Anand Vs.
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors.,
reported in (2012) 1 SCC 113, wherein it is held that affinity
test is not a litmus test for the determination of social status of
claimant.
15. We have perused the certified copy of document
produced on record of the year 1918, which is in respect of
Ambu Halbi showing birth record of one son. The residence of
said Ambu is shown as Dhanki. It appears that the document of
Judgment 12 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
1918 is not considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the
ground that there is a mention of 'Haalbi' ( gkych), however, on
perusal of certified copy of the said document, it appears that it
is not written as 'Haalbi' but 'Halbi'. There is no sufficient
material placed on record by the Scrutiny Committee to rebut
the presumption of certified copy produced by the Petitioner.
The only remark against this document is that this record not
proved authentic in vigilance inquiry. On perusal of vigilance
report, there is a reference of this document, however, it is
mentioned that the said record is in torn condition. It appears
that enquiry was conducted in the year 2021 and certified copy
was issued on July 2019. Only because the record is in torn
condition, it cannot be the reason to invalidate the claim of the
Petitioner.
16. It would be also beneficial to quote the Judgment
passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7419 OF 2024,
(Javedkha s/o Musakha Pathan Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others), dated
13.08.2025, wherein this Court in para 12 held as under :
Judgment 13 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
"12. In the present petition, we have perused the
original record produced by the respondent No.1 -
Committee. Perusal of the said record shows that the
petitioner has produced the certified copies of
Kotwal Book showing the entry in the name of great-
grand-father Sarfarazkha Husainkha of the year
1955 and entry of the year 1934 in the name of
Husainkha Motikha. The said certified copy seems to
have been obtained from Tahsil Office, Buldhana in
the year 2017. As such, it is surprising how the
Vigilance Cell recorded the finding that the
concerned officer has denied them to provide same
documents for verification vide letter dated
17/08/2023 by stating that documents being torn
and in a dilapidated condition. Furthermore, it is
expected from learned committee members to record
finding as to why the certified copies supplied by
petitioner in such circumstances cannot be relied
upon. But neither any findings are recorded nor
exercised their powers to make enquiries as to how
the same authority at one hand issued certified
copies to petitioner and refused the access of record
to Vigilance Officer. As such, there is total non-
application of mind while considering the pre
independence era documents."
In some documents, even if it is written as 'Haalbi' it
hardly makes any difference and has to be treated as 'Halbi'. Just
because there is a difference in pronunciation of the same caste,
the said document cannot be discarded.
Judgment 14 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
17. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners placed
reliance on Sauravkumar s/o Sunilkumar Katole (supra),
wherein this Court relied on on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ,
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 325, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court in para 38 held 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."
Judgment 15 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
18. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners also placed
reliance on the Judgment in Priya Pramod Gajbe (supra),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 9 held as under :
"9. It could thus be seen that this Court has held
that documents of the pre-Constitution period
showing the caste of the applicant and their
ancestors have got the highest probative value. It has
also been held that if an applicant is able to produce
authentic and genuine documents of the per-
Constitution period showing that he belongs to a
tribal community, there is no reason to discard his or
her claim as prior to 1950, there were no
reservations provided to the Tribes included in the
Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order."
19. The learned Additional Government Pleader relied on
the Judgment in Writ Petition No. 10827/2023 (supra), wherein
this Court held that the Petitioner deliberately did not show the
branch of which the Petitioner is lineal descendant and it is
altogether absent in the genealogies provided by some of other
person. It was held that the Petitioner was not related to the
validity holders, which are sought to be relied upon by her in
that matter. In this regard, in the present matter, there is no such
false affidavit. The Sandip as well as Shivani are shown as lineal
descendant of Ambu. In the family tree given by Laxman Parate
Judgment 16 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
though name of Shivani is not appearing, but her father's name
Datta is appearing. Moreover, Ramesh is not claiming any
benefit from the claim of Shivani as well as Sandip, as their
caste claims were already invalidated. Shivani has challenged
her invalidation before this Court vide the Writ Petition No.
6319/2018. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee are patently erroneous, perverse and is
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following
order :
(i) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 26/03/2021, passed in
case No. JC/TCSC/AMT/5/510/Ele/122019/160727,
and order dated 03.08.2018, passed in case No.
lvk@vtizrl@ve@'kSiz@4901@18] passed by the
Respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati are hereby quashed
and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established
that they belong to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby directed to
Judgment 17 J-WP No.1712.2021+1.odt
issue the validity certificates of "Halbi" Scheduled
Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of three
weeks.
20. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(M. W. CHANDWANI, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/12/2025 10:49:07
