[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vijay Jaysing Bhoje And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra, Through Its ... on 19 January, 2026
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M.S.Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-AS:2489-DB
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10678 OF 2017
SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR 1. Vijay Jaysing Bhoje,
Digitally signed by
SATISH RAMCHANDRA
Age : 44 Years, Occupation : Nil.
SANGAR
Date: 2026.01.20
11:15:59 +0530
2. Sanjay Jaysing Bhoje,
Age : 42 Years, Occupation : Nil,
Both Residing at :- Abdullat,
Taluka : Shirol, District : Kolhapur. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032.
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Pune Division, Pune,
Through its Deputy Secretary and
Member Secretary, Having its Office
28, Queen's Garden, Pune : 411 001.
3. Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur,
District : Kolhapur.
4. Collector, Kolhapur,
District : Kolhapur.
5. Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Shirol,
District : Kolhapur. ...Respondents
*****
Mr.Prashant R. Suryawanshi a/w Mr.Gajanan M. Savagave i/b.
Mr.Vishnu A. Madane, Advocates for Petitioners.
Satish Sangar 1/8
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 20/01/2026 20:34:27 :::
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
Smt.K.P.Kakade, Addl.G.P. a/w Smt.V.S.Nimbalkar, AGP, for the
Respondents - State.
*****
CORAM : M.S.KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 19th JANUARY 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)
1. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 12 th December
2025 remanded the Writ Petition for reconsideration by this Court.
The following observations are relevant:-
"1. The applications for substitution are allowed after
condoning the delay and setting aside abatement, if
any, subject to all just exceptions. Applications for
intervention/impleadment are also allowed, subject to
all just exceptions.
2. The issue that falls for consideration in these cases is
whether the appellants or other similarly placed
persons, who claim themselves belonging to 'Thakur'
Scheduled Tribe, are entitled to claim the benefits as
would ensure to the said Scheduled Tribe. It may be
noticed that the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay ("High Court") has, vide the
impugned judgment, upheld the cancellation of caste
certificates of a large number of persons because they
did not fulfil the 'affinity test' for being considered as
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
part of the 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
3. It is not in dispute that a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, vide judgment dated 24.03.2023 (passed in the
instant proceedings). reported in (2023) 16 SCC 415,
has held as follows:
"36. 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
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
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."
4. It may be seen from the above that this Court has
categorically ruled that only when the Scrutiny
Committee after holding an inquiry is not satisfied
with the material produced by an applicant/claimant
(like the appellants), the case can be referred to the
Vigilance Cell. For doing so, the Scrutiny Committee
is obligated to record brief reasons in support of the
conclusion that it was not satisfied with the material
produced by the applicant. The occasion for holding a
further fact-finding inquiry by the Vigilance Cell,
would arise only when this preliminary test prescribed
for the Screening Committee has been met with.
5. In light of the cited decision, we are satisfied that all
these cases require a fresh consideration at the hands of
the High Court, especially to determine whether the
procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee, the
consequential further inquiry, if any, by Vigilance Cell,
and the final conclusion arrived by the Scrutiny
Committee are in consonance with the parameters laid
down by this Court. These appeals are, accordingly,
partly allowed, the Judgement and orders of the High
Court are set aside, and the cases are remanded to the
High Court. The Writ Petitions filed by the
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
appellants/claimants shall stand revived for being
heard and decided afresh.
6. It is clarified that the questions of law, which are not
answered by the above-cited judgement, as well as
other subsequent decisions of this Court, are kept
open, and the parties will be at liberty to raise all their
contentions before the High Court. It also goes
without saying that in this renewed consideration, the
parties may rely upon additional documents, if any,
and the High Court may accord them an opportunity
for the same."
3. We have minutely perused the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioners as
well as learned Addl.G.P.
4. On 12th January 2026, learned Addl.G.P. requested for some
time as the matters were listed suddenly. On the last date i.e. 16 th
January 2026, learned counsel for the Petitioners sought some time to
file Additional Affidavit.
5. The Additional Affidavit on behalf of the Petitioners is filed on
16th January 2026 which is taken on record. The documents relied on
by the Petitioners which are part of the Additional Affidavit were not
before the Scrutiny Committee when the caste claim of the Petitioners
as belonging to "Tokre Koli" was invalidated.
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
6. Learned Addl.G.P. argued in support of the impugned order and
submitted that for cogent reasons, the Scrutiny Committee has
invalidated the caste claim. It is further submitted that the documents
now relied upon by the Petitioners were never placed for consideration
before the Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the Petitioners' claim
has been decided on the basis of the record as it stood while passing of
the impugned order by the Scrutiny Committee.
7. The Petitioners are challenging the order of the Scrutiny
Committee, invalidating their caste claim. By way of Additional
Affidavit, the Petitioners have placed on record a true copy along with
the translation of Birth Register dated 15th April 1915 of the
Petitioners' grandfather's real brother. The said document indicates the
caste "Tokre Koli". Further, the Petitioners have placed on record a
document in respect of loan transaction, the translation of which
indicates that the Petitioners' forefathers and their sisters belong to the
caste "Tokre Koli".
8. It is the submission of learned Addl.G.P. that there is discrepancy
in the name of the Petitioners' grandfather Shankar Bhoje in the
documents which have been produced on record. Learned counsel for
the Petitioners in response relied upon the judgment and order of the
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
Civil Judge, Junior Division-Kurundwad wherein the name of the
Petitioners' grandfather is shown as defendant No.1 Shankar
Parshuram Koli alias Bhoje. This document is relied upon by the
Petitioners to explain the discrepancy in the name of the Petitioners'
grandfather.
8. We, thus, find that there are pre-constitutional documents relied
upon by the Petitioners in support of their caste claim. However, these
documents were not part of the inquiry before the Scrutiny Committee
when the impugned order came to be passed. Learned counsel for the
Petitioners requested that the matter be remitted to the Scrutiny
Committee to examine the Petitioners' claim for validity on the basis of
such documents.
9. In such view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to give an
opportunity to the Petitioners to establish their caste claim also on the
basis of such documents which need to be verified by the Scrutiny
Committee in accordance with due procedure expected of the Scrutiny
Committee in terms 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 (Mah.XXIII
2-WP-10678-2017.doc
of 2001) and the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012.
10. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
genuineness or otherwise of the claim made by the Petitioners on the
basis of said documents and it is for the Scrutiny Committee to
examine the same and decide the caste claim on the basis of such
documents.
11. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside. The Petitioners to
appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 28 th January 2026 at 11.00
a.m. along with a copy of this order. The claim of the Petitioners be
examined afresh and in accordance with law by the Scrutiny
Committee, within a period of six (6) months from the date of
production of the copy of this order. The Petitioners shall co-operate
with the Scrutiny Committee and shall not ask for unnecessary
adjournments.
12. With these observations, the Petition is disposed of.
13. Pending Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
