Bombay High Court
Vandana Mansaram Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 10 March, 2025
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
2025:BHC-AUG:8237-DB
5561.23wp etc
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.5561 OF 2023
Vandana D/o Mansaram Koli,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Plot No.10, Lonkheda Bypass,
Shahada, Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The Sate of Maharashtra,
Through : The Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Extension Building,
Madam Kama Road,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai - 400 032
2. The Committee for verification of
Scheduled Tribe Claims, Nandurbar,
Milk Chilling Plant Building,
Near RTO, Sakri Road,
Nandurbar 425 412
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar ....RESPONDENTS
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.5554 OF 2023
Manisha D/o Mansaram Koli,
Age: 30 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Plot No.10, Lonkheda Bypass,
Shahada, Tq. Shahada,
Dist. Nandurbar ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
5561.23wp etc
(2)
1. The Sate of Maharashtra,
Through : The Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Extension Building,
Madam Kama Road,
Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,
Mumbai - 400 032
2. The Committee for verification of
Scheduled Tribe Claims, Nandurbar,
Milk Chilling Plant Building,
Near RTO, Sakri Road,
Nandurbar 425 412
3. Chief Agriculture Officer,
Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar ....RESPONDENTS
....
Mr Mohanish V. Thorat , Advocate for petitioners in both petitions
Mr S. R. Wakale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL
AND
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10th March, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24/04/2023,
passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification
5561.23wp etc
Committee, invalidating their claim for 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe
in a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,
2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001. The impugned order is a
common order in the matters of petitioners who are real sisters. The
tribe claim of the petitioners is invalidated by the committee
concluding that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim on
the basis of documentary evidence as well as on account of failure to
prove affinity with 'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe.
3. The committee has observed that the documents of
pre-independence era relied upon by the petitioners show the entry of
caste as 'Koli Dhor', which is contrary to the claim for 'Tokre Koli'
and on this count, the documents are discarded. Referring to the
documents of the year 1913 and 1946, the committee has concluded
that these documents do not establish the petitioner's tribe as 'Tokre
Koli' and has invalidated the claim directing initiation of action under
the provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII
of 2001.
5561.23wp etc
4. Mr M. V. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners in
both the matters vehemently submits that the committee has adopted
erroneous approach in deciding the tribe claim. He submits that the
document in the nature of birth extract of the petitioner's great
grandfather Ragha Daga Sampat, dated 08/06/1913 showing the caste
as 'Koli Dhor' and another document of school record of petitioner's
grandfather Sitaram Ragha, dated 13/06/1946 showing the caste as
'Koli Dhor Hindu', were sufficient to establish the social status of the
petitioner as scheduled tribe since 'Tokre Koli' and 'Koli Dhor' cannot
be considered to be contrary entries. He submits that these are the
oldest documents carrying high probative value and cannot be brushed
aside by labelling them as contrary entries. In support of his
submissions, he relies upon the judgment dated 20/07/2024 delivered
by this Court in Writ Petition No.1209/2022 in the matter of
Samridhhi Yogesh Savale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.
5. Per contra, Mr S. R. Wakale, learned A.G.P. for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the petitions vehemently submits that
the documents showing entries as 'Koli Dhor' are inconsistent with the
tribe claim for 'Tokre Koli' and on these submissions, justifies the
impugned order. He submits that the entry of caste has to be read as it
5561.23wp etc
is and in absence of any pre-independence era documents showing the
caste as 'Tokre Koli', the petitioners' claim is rightly invalidated.
6. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
papers.
7. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have relied upon
documents of the year 1913 and 1946 with respect to their great
grandfather and grandfather which shows the entry as 'Koli Dhor'.
While considering these documents, the committee has inferred that
the documents of 'Koli Dhor' are contrary to the claim and therefore,
in absence of any other documents of pre-independence era, it has
invalidated the petitioners' claim. It is worthwhile to mention here that
a similar issue fell for consideration of this bench in the matter of
Nilesh Gulab Sonawane and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others (Writ Petition No.9654/2019 decided on 18/10/2023), which
was followed in the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale (supra) and
this Court has held that the entries of 'Koli Dhor' and 'Tokre Koli' are
mentioned in the same entry i.e. Entry No.28 of the Constitution
(Schedule Tribes) Order, 1950 and cannot be treated as inconsistent
entries. In these judgments, it is held that since the Legislature in its
wisdom has put 'Koli Dhor' and 'Tokre Koli' in the same entry, the
5561.23wp etc
claim of 'Tokre Koli' cannot be treated as inconsistent with 'Koli
Dhor'.
8. In the light of above, the document of birth extract of
petitioner's great grandfather dated 08/06/1913 showing the caste as
'Koli Dhor' cannot be discarded as document inconsistent to the tribe
claim. This is the oldest document having high probative value and
ought to have been made the basis to decide the petitioner's tribe
claim. As such, the only reason put forth by the committee in
discarding the documents of 1913 and 1946 is unsustainable. Even
considering the documents of 'Koli Dhor', the petitioner's social status
is maintained as scheduled tribe since the entry of 'Tokre Koli' and
'Koli Dhor' fall in the same entry i.e. Entry No.28 and thus, the
petitioners' claim for scheduled tribe sustains.
9. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion
that the impugned order passed by the scrutiny committee is
unsustainable and it is liable to be quashed and set aside. The
petitioners are entitled for validation of their claim for 'Tokre Koli'
scheduled tribe. Hence, we pass the following order :-
(a) The writ petitions are allowed.
5561.23wp etc
(b) The impugned order dated 24/04/2023, passed by
respondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside.
(c) Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to immediately
issue validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to the
'Tokre Koli' Scheduled Tribe in a prescribed format.
(d) The petitioners shall not claim any equities.
10. Rule is made absolute in above terms.
(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
sjk
