[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sanjeev Gulabchand Thakur vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 4 December, 2025
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2025:BHC-AUG:33546-DB
951.2013WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 951 OF 2013
Sanjeev S/o Gulabchand Thakur
Age : 34 years, Occ : Service,
R/o 55 years, R/o Shastri Nagar,
Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Co-operation, Marketing & Textile
Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Committee for Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim,
Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar.
3. The Divisional Deputy Registrar,
Co-operative Societies (Audit)
Nashik Division, Nashik.
... RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________________
• Mr. Y. C. Yeramwar, Advocate for Petitioner
• Mrs. V. P. Dama AGP for State
_______________________________________________________________
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, JJ.
RESERVED ON : DECEMBER 01, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : DECEMBER 04, 2025
J U D G M E N T [Per Vaishali Patil - Jadhav, J.] :
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned advocates for the parties.
sga 1/8
951.2013WP
2. This petition is directed against the order dated 28.09.2012
passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the
Tribe Claim of the petitioner of "Thakur, Scheduled Tribe". The
Committee has invalidated the claim of the petitioner by ignoring the
old entries of the year 1951 and 1955, wherein the caste is mentioned
as "Thakur", so also on the ground of area restriction and failure to pass
the affinity test.
3. Petitioner has relied on total 30 documents to support his
claim, namely school admission register, school leaving certificates,
caste certificate, service book entry, which all mention caste as "Thakur".
The oldest entry of school admission is of year 1951 and 1955 in school
leaving certificate of real uncle and paternal aunt of the petitioner.
4. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP
for State. Perused the original record made available by learned AGP.
5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner would submit that in
view of the pre-constitutional record, Committee ought to have
accepted the Tribe Claim of the petitioner. He would submit that the
approach of the Committee in ignoring the pre-constitutional entry and
relying on entry of the post-constitutional period as "Hindu Non-B.C.
sga 2/8
951.2013WP
and Thakur E.Ma" of the year 1978 and 1976 in school leaving
certificate of cousin and one relative, is perverse. It is further submitted
that in view of the legal position, the findings of the Committee
regarding area restriction and affinity test are unsustainable.
6. Per-contra, learned A.G.P. would support the impugned
order. He would submit that the documents produced on record only
indicate caste as "Thakur", which is also found in upper caste. Hence, it
is imperative to consider result of affinity test.
7. The Committee rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner
mainly on the ground that the entry "Thakur" by itself does not establish
that the petitioner belongs to the "Thakur, Scheduled Tribe". As the said
caste is also found in upper caste, hence caste entry as "Thakur" can also
be interpreted as upper caste "Thakur". Here it will be apposite to refer
the observations made in the case of Baburao S/o Rajaram Shinde Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others, 2002(4) Mh.L.J. 310) :-
"32. The Scrutiny Committee has limited role to
investigate whether the claimant before it belongs to
"Thakur or Thakar" caste and on that basis it may take steps
as are mandated by law laid down by the Supreme Court in
Kum. Madhuri Patil's case, AIR 1995 SC 94. On adjudication
if the Committee records a finding in the affirmative, it has
to certify that the claimant belongs to the Scheduled Tribe
sga 3/8
951.2013WP
and it cannot venture into any further inquiry into such a
claim. In the case at hand, the Committee recorded a
finding that the petitioner had claimed to belong to Thakar
Scheduled Tribe and the claim was subjected to verification
by the Committee which recorded a finding on adjudication
of this claim that the petitioner belonged to "Hindu Thakar"
caste which falls in the Other Backward Classes. The
petitioner has challenged this finding on the ground that
once he was found to be belonging to the "Thakar caste" it
was incompetent for the Committee to give any further
declaration regarding his social status and to hold that the
claimant belonged to "Hindu Thakar" caste-a non-tribal
group. If the Committee was satisfied that the claimant did
not belong to Thakar caste, it had the powers to give a
declaration accordingly. It certainly did not have the powers
to give a further declaration and that too contrary to the
petitioner's claim that he belonged to Hindu Thakar caste.
These submissions have considerable force and we agree
that once the Committee recorded a finding that the
claimant belongs to Thakar caste it had no jurisdiction to
give any further declaration and the only course available to
it in such cases was to validate the claimant's, social status
as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (entry no. 44). It is for
these reasons that the impugned order is contrary to law
and the Scrutiny Committee has fallen in serious error in
denying the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe claim. The said
order is, therefore, unsustainable and it requires to be
quashed and set-aside."
sga 4/8
951.2013WP
In view of the above observations, once the Committee
found that the petitioner belongs to "Thakur" Caste, the Committee has
misdirected itself in holding that the said caste is also found in upper
caste and it can be interpreted as upper caste "Thakur", the said finding
recorded by the Committee is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed
and set aside.
8. The Committee has observed that the petitioner's real uncle
and paternal aunt were admitted to school in the year 1951, 1955 and
during that period, persons belonging to the "Thakur" community were
backward and lacked educational advancement. The Committee has
erroneously rejected the oldest entry of 1951, 1955 and has relied on
the entry of the year 1976 and 1978 in school record of cousin and one
relative of the petitioner as "Hindu Non-B.C. and Thakur E.Ma. The
same reflects non-application of mind. The pre-constitutional record has
greater probative value is settled position of law as per the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Ku. Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, AIR 1995 SC 94 and
Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and
Others, (2012)1 SCC 113.
Therefore, the Committee has erred in ignoring the pre-
constitutional documents supporting the claim of the petitioner and has
further erred in relying on recent entries.
sga 5/8
951.2013WP
9. The Committee has rejected the petitioner's claim on the
ground of area restriction that the petitioner and his forefathers' were
not residing in the areas, which were scheduled for "Thakur Scheduled
Tribe". After issuance of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, the area restrictions are lifted. In
Jaywant Dilip Pawar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2018 (5) All.
M.R. 975, it has been held that :-
"1. The short point raised by learned counsel for the
appellants in these appeals is that after The Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act
No.108 of 1976) was published in the Gazette on 20.09.1976,
the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra for the Thakur community has been deleted and
all members of Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma
Thakur and Ma Thakar community are treated to be Scheduled
Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim of the
appellants on the ground that the relatives of the appellants
were not residents of the areas mentioned in the Presidential
Order, 1956 and further they were not able to give any details
of customs and traditions being observed by the said
community.
2. In our considered opinion, that is wholly irrelevant. The
appellants have only to establish that they belong to the
community mentioned at Serial No.44 of Part IX of Second
Schedule of Act No.108 of 1976."
sga 6/8
951.2013WP
10. Therefore, the findings of the Committee in respect of area
restrictions cannot be sustained in view of the above judgment and the
Amendment Act of 1976.
11. The another ground on which the Committee has rejected
the petitioner's claim is that the petitioner has failed to prove affinity
test. In view of the decisions in Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra) and Mah. Adiwasi
Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326, it is now well settled that affinity test
is not conclusive either way and it is not a litmus test.
12. For the above reasons, the impugned order is unsustainable
and hence it is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petition
deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER :
-
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 28.09.2012 passed by
Respondent No.2 - Committee is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent - Committee is directed to forthwith issue
validity certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to 'Thakur,
Scheduled Tribe'.
951.2013WP
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(v) No order as to costs.
[VAISHALI PATIL - JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]
