Bombay High Court
Dnyanendra Shamrao Hedaoo vs Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 25 September, 2025
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2025:BHC-NAG:9755-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4659 OF 2024
Dnyanendra Shamrao Hedaoo,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation - Assistant Professor in,
Arts, Science & Commerce College,
Chikhaldara, r/o Paratwada, R/o.03,
Gurukul Colony, Paratwada-444805
Tq. Achalpur, District Amravati. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1) Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amravati,
Through its Member Secretary,
in front of State Information
Commission Office, Amravati-444602
2) Sipna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal,
Amravati, through its Secretary,
Chunna Bhatti, Mudhodkarpeth,
Amravati - 444601.
3) Principal, Arts, Science and Commerce
College, Chikhaldara 444807,
District Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. A. V. Palshikar, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1.
Ms. Sonali Khobragade, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment 2 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 16.09.2025
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 25.09.2025
JUDGMENT :
(Per - M. S. JAWALKAR, J.)
1. Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
Matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by
consent of the parties and at the request of parties.
2. The Petitioner, by this Petition is challenging the
order dated 29/07/2024, passed by the Respondent No.1 -
Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati
thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioner as "Halbi"
Scheduled Tribe enlisted at Sr. No. 19 of the Scheduled Tribe
Order.
3. The contention of the Petitioner is that he is working
as 'Assistant Professor' in Respondent No.3 College. The
Petitioner has been issued a Caste Certificate by the Executive
Magistrate, Achalpur, District Amravati on 23/03/1992.
However, the Respondent No. 1 Committee, without obtaining a
Vigilance Cell Report, issued a Caste Validity Certificate to the
Judgment 3 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
Petitioner certifying that he belongs to Halba Koshti, sub-caste of
Koshti caste on 30/07/1994. The Petitioner further contended
that as per the Judgment of this Court in case of Milind Katware
Vs. State, this Court held that the Halba Koshti is sub-tribe of
Halba/Halbi and therefore they are entitled for benefit of Halba/
Halbi. The State Government against the said Judgment filed an
appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble Apex Court
did not grant stay, with the result that the Committee started
issuing validity certificate of Halba Koshi. Thereafter, the
Hon'ble Apex Court reversed the Judgment of this Court and
held that Halba/Halbis are entitled for validity however, Halba
Koshtis cannot be considered as Scheduled Tribe and are not
entitled for caste validity certificates. In view of that the Validity
Certificated issued to the Petitioner was cancelled by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee on 19/04/2004.
4. It is further contended that the Petitioner has filed a
Petition before this Court vide Writ Petition No.2930/1994
challenging the conditional validity certificate dated 30.07.1994
and the order dated 19/07/2004 passed by the Respondent
Committee. This court vide order dated 28/08/2013, set aside
Judgment 4 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
the orders dated 30/04/1994 and 19/07/2004 and remanded
the proceedings back to the Respondent No. 1 Committee for
deciding afresh and further directed the Respondent No. 1
Committee to complete the proceedings within one year and if
the decision of the Scrutiny Committee goes against the
Petitioner, the same shall not be effective for a period of 15 days
from the date of its communication. It is further contended that
after remand, the Caste Scrutiny Committee called the Vigilance
Cell report, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report on
13/03/2024, in which one entry of 'Vithoba' who is recorded as
'Koshti' on 13/09/1916 is found and in the sale deed of Vithoba
Mangala Hedaoo, it is recorded as Halbi of 1948. The petitioner
submitted his reply to the Vigilance Cell, wherein he contended
that the said entry of Vithoba of the year 1916 is a different
person and not the great grandfather of the Petitioner. Since
Vithoba Mangalaji's (great grandfather of the Petitioner) entries
are there right from 1944-45, the entry of 13/09/1946 is
denied. Thereafter, the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the
impugned order dated 29/07/2024 decided the caste claim of
the Petitioner which is challenged under this Petition.
Judgment 5 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
5. Among the documents submitted by the Petitioner in
support of his caste claim, following are the documents having
old entries before the year 1950:
Sr. Description of Document Date
No.
1 School Leaving Certificate of Father 01.04.1950
2 Dakhal Kharij Register of father showing caste Halbi 01.04.1950
3 School Leaving Certificate of Grandfather 12.04.1922
4 Dakhal Kharij Register of Grandfather 12.04.1922
5 Birth Certificate of Father 18.10.1943
6 Sale Deed of Great Grandfather Vithoba 08.06.1944
7 Entry of caste in Sale Deed in respect of Great 01.06.1945
Grandfather
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon
the following Citations:
(i) Priya Pravin Parate Vs. Scheduled Tribes Caste
Certificates Scrutiny Committee, nagpur & Ors. ,
reported in 2013(1) Mh.L.J. 180;
(ii) Writ Petition No. 4061/2018, Ms. Swati Krushnarao
Hedaoo Vs. The Schedule Tribes Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Amrvati & Anr., dated
10/07/2023.
7. The Respondent No. 1 Committee, while rejecting
the caste claim of the Petitioner has relied solely on the
document procured by the Vigilance Cell in its report dated
Judgment 6 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
13/03/2024, which shows the birth entry dated 13/09/1916 of
one Vithoba, who is shown to belong to Koshti caste. The
learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the order
passed on 29/07/2024 is well reasoned and there is no
interference warranted.
8. Heard both the parties at length. Perused the
original record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the
assistance of Assistant Government Pleader and considered the
citations relied on by the Petitioner.
9. For the sake of convenience the Family-tree is
reproduced as under :
10. It appears that in Writ Petition No.2390/1994 vide
order dated 28/08/2013, the Caste Scrutiny Committee was
Judgment 7 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
directed to decide the claim within a period of one year
however, the Report of the Vigilance is called in the year 2024.
The document pertains to Shamrao Namdeorao Hedaoo, his
date of birth is 18th October, 1943, he admitted in the school in
1950 and his Caste is shown as 'Halbi' (page-28). There is
another document showing date of birth of Namdeo Vithoba
Hedaoo as 01st February, 1915, he was admitted in the school on
12/04/2022 to 04/04/1926 (page-29). The another document
on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner is in respect of
Janardan Vithoba, wherein the caste is shown as 'Halbi'. He
admitted in the school on 01/04/1931 to 11/03/1932, his date
of birth is shown as 16/07/1920 and he passed out from
4th standard (page-117). The Petitioner also placed reliance on
document in respect of Pralhad Namdeo Hedaoo, in the said
document, Caste is shown as "Halbi". He was admitted in the
school on 03/04/1944 till 12/03/1948, his date of birth shown
as 09/11/1937 (page-118). The Petitioner also placed reliance
on document i.e. Sale-deed dated 31/05/1948, wherein
Vithobaji Mangalji Hedaoo is shown as Halbi (page-125). There
Judgment 8 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
is one more Sale-deed dated 06/05/1948, wherein Vithoba
Mangalaji Hedaoo is shown as Halbi (page-31).
11. The Vigilance Cell procured two entries as Koshti and
Halbi Koshti in respect of Vithoba. So far as document No.2
(page-47) in respect of Vithoba Mangalaji Hedaoo, which is the
document produced on page No.31 by the Petitioner itself
showing caste 'Halbi'. There is no reference of caste Koshti in the
said document. The document at Serial No.1, the Vigilance Cell
procured this document dated 13/09/1916, wherein there is
mention of Vithoba Koshti, however, there are no further details
of Vithoba nor his full name is mentioned. It is also made clear
that whether said Vithoba gave birth to one male or female
child, in absence of any details of that Vithoba, this entry cannot
be considered and should not be considered by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. There are two sons to Vithoba namely
Namdeo born in 1915 and Janardan born in 1920. Thus, the
entry of Vithoba shown in the document of 13/09/1916 cannot
be said to be in relation to the Petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny
Committee relied on these two documents, which are not at all
in relation to the Petitioner.
Judgment 9 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
12. Moreover, it is not explained as to how these persons
are in relation to the Petitioner. It is a common knowledge that
there are so many persons by same name therefore, unless there
are details of that persons, that entry should not be relied on. It
appears that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not consider the
reply of the Petitioner and after remand on 28/08/2013,
conducted vigilance in the year 2024, though there was a
direction to decide the same in one year. Thus, the documents
which are relied on by the Caste Scrutiny Committee are of
persons who are not in relation to the Petitioner. The findings
recorded is thus perverse, erroneous and unsustainable.
13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Priya
Pravin Parate (supra), wherein this Court in para 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
Judgment 10 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
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.
From the aforesaid authority, it would reveal
that persons belonging to Halba Tribe had migrated
to west and taken service under the Gond Kings of
Chanda. It can also be seen that some of them had
taken to weaving and had amalgamated with the
Koshti caste in Bhandara and Berar. Merely because
some stray entries as "Koshti" are recorded in respect
of caste of some of the relative of petitioners from
their paternal side; the voluminous documentary
evidence of pre-Constitution era which clearly certify
the petitioners great-grandfather and his brothers to
be Halbi, could not have been lightly brushed aside
by the Scrutiny Committee. As discussed
hereinabove, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Anand (supra), found that the pre-Independence
documents have a greater probative value and they
should be given due consideration while considering
the claim of a tribal."
Judgment 11 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
14. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also placed
reliance on Ms. Swati Krushnarao Hedaoo (supra), wherein this
Court in para 7 held as under :
"7. We find support in the argument of learned
Counsel for the petitioner that since no further
details except the names 'Shivram' and 'Vatsala' and
their caste as 'Koshti' in the documents relied by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, are found and these
persons are different, particularly, in view of the
number of pre-constitutional documents of Shivram
Mahadeo showing the caste 'Halbi' and coupled with
the specific contention in the reply to the Vigilance
Cell that Vatsala is not aunt of the petitioner. We find
that having no further details, except the name of
'Shivram' and 'Vatsala', the Caste Scrutiny Committee
unnecessary connected these persons as relatives of
the petitioner. Therefore, this finding of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee does not sustain."
In the present matter also the Scrutiny Committee
unnecessarily connected these persons as relatives of the
Petitioner only on the basis of similarity in name without any
further details.
15. Thus, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee is liable to be set aside being perverse, illegal and
erroneous. Accordingly, we pass the following order :
Judgment 12 J-WP No.4659.2024.odt
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29/07/2024, passed by
the Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati in case
No. lvk/vtizrl/ve/Mh,lih/396/2003/2013, is hereby
quashed and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioner duly established that
he belongs to "Halbi" Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The Respondent No.1 - Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati is hereby
directed to issue validity certificates of "Halbi"
Scheduled Tribe to the Petitioner within a period of
three weeks.
The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 25/09/2025 18:25:59
