[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sakshi Santosh Thakur (Wardekar) And ... vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate ... on 9 January, 2026
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: M. S. Jawalkar
2026:BHC-NAG:266-DB
Judgment 1 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5897 OF 2023
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5901 OF 2023
WRIT PETITION NO. 5897 OF 2023
Santosh Subhashrao Thakur (Wardekar)
Aged about 62 years, Occ. Retired,
R/o Bypass road Mangrulpir,
Tah. Mangrulpir, District- Washim. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal,
Through its Member-Secretary. .... RESPONDENT
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5901 OF 2023
1) Sakshi Santosh Thakur (Wardekar),
Aged about 22 years, Occ. Student,
2) Vinay Santosh Thakur (Wardekar),
Aged about 25 years, Occ. Student,
Both R/o. Bypass road Mangrulpir,
Tah. Mangrulpir, District- Washim. .... PETITIONERS
// VERSUS //
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal,
Through its Member-Secretary. .... RESPONDENT
Judgment 2 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. V. Bute, Advocate for Petitioners in both petitions.
Mr. N. R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent in both petitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MRS. M. S. JAWALKAR AND
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE ON RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 05.01.2026
DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 09.01.2026
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. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No.5897/2023 is the
Father of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.5901/2023, hence,
both these petitions are decided by this common judgment and
the Writ Petition No.5897/2023 is to be considered as lead
petition.
3. The Petitioners by these petitions are challenging the
orders dated 31.05.2023 and 03.07.2023 passed by the
Respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal, thereby
invalidating the caste claims of the Petitioners to the 'Thakur'
Judgment 3 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
Scheduled Tribe, which is enlisted at Sr. No. 44 of the Scheduled
Tribe Order, 1950.
4. The Petitioner in W.P. No. 5897/2023 submitted his
caste claim to the Respondent Committee on 16.02.2009
whereas the Petitioners in W.P. No. 5901/2023 submitted their
caste claims to the Respondent Committee on 06.08.2021. The
Respondent Committee conducted Police Vigilance inquiry and
the Police Vigilance Cell submitted its report to the Respondent
Committee on 14.03.2023 and 28.02.2023 respectively.
5. In support of their tribe claim, the Petitioners have
submitted following documents of pre-constitutional period:
Sr. Description of Document Caste Date
No.
1 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of Thakur 30.06.1943
Father of Petitioner
2 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of Thakur 30.09.1917
Grandfather of Petitioner
3 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of Thakur 28.06.1938
Sanjiv Wardekar
4 School record of Suresh Wardekar, the Thakur 01.07.1947
cousin grandfather of the Petitioner
5 Copy of School Leaving Certificate of Thakur 15.06.1939
Pandit Kashinath Wardekar
6 School Leaving extract of grandfather Thakur 03.09.1917
Narayan Ramji
Judgment 4 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
7 Dakhal Kharij Extract of Jagannath Thakur 03.09.1917
Madhaorao
6. The Petitioners further submitted that, apart from the
documents of pre-constitutional period, there are six validities
issued to the relatives of the Petitioners i.e. uncle Dhananjay
Sanjeev Wardekar, Janhvi Dhananjay Wardekar, Leeladhar
Jagannath wardekar, Rajendra Panditrao Wardekar and Saurabh
Rajendra Wardekar.
7. The Petitioners herein filed a Writ Petition
No.6787/2022 seeking direction to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to decide the claim and accordingly, this Court has
issued the direction to the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
8. It is worthwhile to note the submissions made by the
Petitioners that the Respondent Committee has relied on adverse
entries of "Bhat" procured in the Vigilance inquiry belonging to
strangers and ignored the genuine documents submitted by the
Petitioners. The Petitioners further submitted that one of the
ground for rejection taken by the Respondent Committee is
regarding the Affinity Test which has already been discarded by
Judgment 5 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
the Hon'ble Apex Court by observing that the Affinity test is not
a litmus test in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Saurakshan
Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra [2023 SCC online SC 326].
9. The learned Counsel for Petitioners relied upon the
Judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No.7327/2024
(Shraddha Sharad Wardekar Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal) along with one
connected matter, decided on 21.08.2025.
10. Per Contra, the Respondent Caste Scrutiny
Committee contended that, in the investigation, it is found that,
the Petitioners' family was consistently recorded as "Bhat" or
"Kanzar Bhat" and held a high socio-economic status, which is
inconsistent with tribal characteristics of the 'Thakur' Scheduled
Tribe. The Respondent Committee further alleges that, the
Petitioners suppressed crucial facts, including non-tribal relatives
and sale deeds for non-tribal lands. These documents, along
with a previous Court order and police records, confirmed the
family's non-tribal identity.
Judgment 6 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
11. The Respondent Committee further contends that,
the Petitioners failed to address the adverse vigilance report and
that validity certificates of other relatives are not applicable due
to similar suppression of facts. The Scrutiny Committee's order
to invalidate their claims was therefore proper and legally
sound.
12. In its reply, the Respondent Caste Scrutiny
Committee has relied on the following entries of "Bhat", which
are adverse to the claim of the Petitioners belonging to pre-
constitutional era:
Sr. Document Name Relationship Caste Date
No. Type with the
petitioner
1 Kotwal Book A female Relative Bhat 20.04.1918
Birth extract child born to
(Mauje Narayan
Madhan)
2 Kotwal Book A male child Relative Bhat 09.03.1921
Birth extract born to
(Mouja Dhondya
Madhan)
2 Kotwal Book A male child Relative Bhat 14.04.1921
Birth extract born to
(Mauje Narayan
Madhan)
Judgment 7 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
3 Kotwal Book A male child Relative Bhat 04.05.1912
Birth extract born to
(Mauje Narayan Wald
Madhan) Tukaram Bhat
4 Kotwal Book A female Cousin Bhat 30.05.1921
Birth extract Child born to Uncle's Son-
(Mauje Shesharav in-laws aunt
Madhan)
5 Kotwal Book A male Child Relative Bramha 20.10.1930
Birth extract born to Bhat
(Mauje Gulabrao vald
Madhan) Balkrushna
6 Kotwal Book A female Cousin Bhat 01.07.1934
Birth extract Child born to Uncle
(Mauje Dhondya Grandfather
Madhan) Wald Yadoji 's Aunt
7 School Kamal Cousin Bhat 16.04.1942
Admission Mahadeorao Uncle Son-
Register in-law's
Aunt
8 School Kamal Cousin Bhat 04.10.1943
Admission Mahadeorao Uncle Son-
Register in-law's
Aunt
9 Kotwal Book A female Cousin Bhat 20.09.1936
Birth extract Child Shanti Uncle's son-
(Mauje born to in-laws aunt
Madhan) Tulsiram
10 School Kamal Cousin Bhat 02.07.1947
Admission Mahadeorao Uncle Son-
Register in-law's
Aunt
13. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties at
length. Perused the record and proceedings with the assistance
of the learned Assistant Government Pleader and considered the
citations relied upon by the Petitioner.
Judgment 8 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
14. For the sake of convenience, family tree is
reproduced as under :
15. It appears from the order of the Scrutiny Committee
that there are as many as 80 documents however, the documents
prior to 1950 are relevant in these 80 documents and only
remark appears that as per statement, they are certain relatives
residing at Mauja Madhan, Tah. Chandur (Bazar), District
Amravati. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not
explained how these documents are pertaining to the blood
relatives of the Petitioners. If these documents prior to 1950 are
perused, names in the documents of Mouja Madhan are not
Judgment 9 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
appearing at all in the family tree. The Scrutiny Committee
considered these documents, even in the said documents there is
no similarity in the name. It is very surprising that the Caste
Scrutiny Committee without referring to the family tree, held
that the female child born to Sheshrao who is in relation with
the Petitioners as his cousin uncle's son-in-law's aunt. The
documents on which the Caste Scrutiny Committee has relied, is
nothing but an attempt to reject the claims of the Petitioners
anyhow. It also appears that there is no consideration to the
documents produced by the Petitioners nor to the reply to the
show-cause notice by the Petitioners. It is specifically mentioned
that the entries from Mouja Madhan, Tah. Chandur Bazar,
District Amravati are not the person in blood relation of the
Petitioners.
16. One of the ground of rejection of the caste claim is
that there are sale deeds executed by the relatives of the
Petitioners wherein it is not mentioned that the land belongs to
Scheduled Tribe. In fact, this issue is already covered by this
Court in the Judgment of Shraddha Sharad Wardekar and
Shreyas Sharad Wardekar (supra). The documents relied on in
Judgment 10 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
the petition filed by Shraddha and Shreyas are the same
documents.
17. In all, there are 6 validity certificates issued to the
relatives of the Petitioners showing their Tribe as 'Thakur'. The
Petitioners also placed on record the judgments in other writ
petitions, in which, the relatives of the Petitioners declared as
'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioners relied on judgment in
the case of Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors., reported in 2010(6)
Mh.L.J. 401, wherein this Court in para 7 and 9 held as under :
"7. We thus come to the conclusion that when during
the course of enquiry the candidate submits a caste
validity certificate granted earlier certifying that a
blood relation of the candidate belongs to the same
caste as that claimed by the applicant, the committee
may grant such certificate without calling for
Vigilance Cell Report. However, if the committee
finds that the earlier caste certificate is tainted by
fraud or is granted without jurisdiction, the
Committee may refuse to follow and may refuse to
grant certificate to the applicant before it."
"9. In the present case, we find that the committee
has disbelieved the petitioner's case that she belongs
to Kanjar Bhat after calling the school leaving
certificate of petitioner's father and noticing that the
original caste written on it was 'Thakur' and that was
subsequently changed to Kanjar Bhat. The
Judgment 11 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
committee observed that the caste has been changed
without complying with the procedure prescribed by
Section 48(e) and 132(3) of Mumbai Primary
Education Act. In fact, the caste has been changed
on the basis of the affidavit. From the findings of the
committee it appears that the committee has
observed that the change of caste has been done
illegally. Obviously, the committee which decided the
caste claim of the petitioner's sister did not hold the
same view, otherwise it would have refused to grant
validity. 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. In this view of the
matter, we are of the view that the petition must
succeed. Rule is made absolute in above terms. The
Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to furnish the
caste validity certificate to the petitioner."
Judgment 12 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
18. The order of the Scrutiny Committee is running into
160 pages, however, the documents of prior to 1950 having
more probative value were not discussed and brushed aside on
erroneous reasons. The document of 1917 is the oldest one. It is
discarded only for the reason that the Committee feels that it is
suspicious. The document of 1917 pertaining to Narayan Ramji
Thakur is not discussed at all. If the documents prior to 1950 are
perused, they are of 1917, 1938, 1939 and 1947 and all the
names of the persons are appearing in the genealogy. Apart from
that, there are six validities in favour of blood relatives of the
Petitioners. So far as sale deeds are concerned, those documents
are subsequent to cut off date. There are consequences in the
Revenue Code for not taking permission of the Collector to sale
of Tribal land to non-tribal. However, non mentioning of caste in
the sale deeds, would not affect the rights of the Petitioners, as
their ancestors were 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribes entered into pre-
constitutional period.
19. This Court in the judgment of Shraddha Sharad
Wardekar and Shreyas Sharad Wardekar (supra) , relied on the
judgment of Rushikesh Madhukar Chavan Vs. Scheduled Tribes
Judgment 13 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati, reported in
2022(2) Mh.L.J. 136, wherein it is held that :-
"14. In the instant case, the Committee has not
relied upon the decisions in these writ petitions on
the ground of suppression of the fact that caste claim
of Vijay was rejected and the challenge to the said
order was dismissed in Writ Petition No. 447 of
2002. It is true that in subsequent petitions, there is
no reference to rejection of caste claim of Vijay or
dismissal of the Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002. In our
view, suppression of these facts would be material
only if the caste claim of Vijay and of the Petitioners
in Writ Petition Nos. 5104 of 2019, 2131 of 2018
and 5105 of 2019 was based on the same
documents. The impugned order does not indicate
that the caste claim of the Petitioners in the
aforestated writ petitions was based on the very
same documents relied upon by Vijay, which were
considered and rejected by the Committee. By
judgment dated 01.08.2018, the Division Bench of
this Court had dismissed a group of petitions
including the Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002. The
judgment does not mention the documents or the
other material relied by said Vijay in support of the
caste claim. In fact, a perusal of the said judgment
reveals that this Court had not adjudicated the caste
claim of Vijay independently and had not recorded
reasons for invalidating his claim. Moreover, it is on
record that the decision of this Court in the case of
Vijay Chavhan in Writ Petition No. 447 of 2002 is
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
the Apex Court has continued the interim relief
granted by this Court in favour of the Petitioner-
Vijaym Chavhan. Furthermore, the caste certificates
issued in favour of the blood relatives of the
Judgment 14 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
Petitioners have not been cancelled on the ground of
fraud. In the absence of proof of fraud or
suppression of material facts, the Committee was not
justified in discarding the previous judgments or in
rejecting the caste claim of the Petitioners only
because the claim of their paternal uncle Vijay was
discarded."
20. This Court in the judgment of Shraddha Sharad
Wardekar and Shreyas Sharad Wardekar (supra) , also relied on
the judgment of Ku. Chhaya d/o Jasvantsingh Hajari Vs. The
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claima,
Amravati and Anr., Writ Petition No.4198/2005 with other
connected matters, wherein, the question involved was - When
the pre-constitutional documents record the caste as 'Thakur'
and those documents are genuine, whether the recourse to
affinity test is open ? The answer to this, would be that
depending on affinity, is not essential nor suitable because
historical and documentary evidence are more reliable than
affinity tests.
21. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner placed
reliance on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan
Judgment 15 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
Samiti (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as
under :
"36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that:
(a) ..........
(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."
22. In our considered opinion, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee has not considered the relevant material and only
relied and discussed on irrelevant evidence. Whenever the
Scrutiny Committee places reliance on certain documents
showing adverse/contra entries, it has to be established by the
Scrutiny Committee that the said documents are pertaining to
the blood relatives of the Petitioners. The reliance on the said
documents just to reject the claim of the Petitioners is not the
function of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. It appears that the
Vigilance Cell procured the documents and alleged that they are
Judgment 16 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
in relation, however, there is nothing on record to establish that
they are in relation with the Petitioners. As such, so many
documents procured by the Vigilance Cell without showing how
they are in relation with the Petitioners is having no probative
value.
23. As such, the impugned orders passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee are patently erroneous, perverse and are
liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass following
order :
(i) Both the Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 31.05.2023, passed in case
No. 5/ST/2009/13525, and order dated 03.07.2023,
passed in case Nos. (1) 5/502/Edu/072021/182628
and (2) 5/502/Edu/072021/182629, passed by the
Respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal are hereby quashed
and set aside.
(iii) It is declared that the Petitioners duly established that
they belong to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe.
(iv) The Respondent Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Yavatmal is hereby directed to
Judgment 17 J-WP No.5897.2023+1.odt
issue the validity certificates of "Thakur" Scheduled
Tribe to the Petitioners within a period of four weeks.
24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.)
Kirtak
Signed by: Mr. B.J. Kirtak
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 09/01/2026 16:08:06
