SHRI. SAGAR S/O RAVINDRA SURYAWANSHI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT , THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MANTRALAY
WP/11734/2014 · 2026-09-17
body2014
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2014 DAILYLAW 2850 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2014 DAILYLAW 2850 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
16.WP11734.2014.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11734 OF 2014 Shri. Sagar S/o. Ravindra Suryawanshi … Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents -------------- Mr. Sahil Choudhari h/f. Mr. Sushant Yeramvar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent/State. Mr. Gaurav Paithankar, Law Consultant, S.T.C.C. Committee, Dhule. --------------
CORAM :
M. S. KARNIK & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATE :
17th SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mrs. Raje, learned AGP for the State. 2. The Petitioner obtained Caste certificate dated 17/5/2003 as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe from the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. Tribe claim of the Petitioner was referred to the Committee alongwith the documentary evidence on 19/7/2010. The Petitioner relied upon the Certificate of validity issued by the Committee in favour of his cousin brother viz. Dhiraj Talwalkar 1
ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA SANDEEP TALWALKAR Date: 2026.09.18 14:53:33 +0530
16.WP11734.2014.odt Gorakh Suryawanshi in support of his tribe claim. The Committee invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the original residence of the Petitioner is not from the Scheduled Area for ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ and the Petitioner failed to prove the affinity test. 3. The Petitioner relied upon the genealogy which is at page 36 of the paper book which is duly verified by the Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner also relied upon the validity certificate of Dhiraj Gorakh Suryawanshi, his cousin, as belonging to ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’. Relying on the genealogy, the Petitioner contended that Dhiraj is a close blood relative from the paternal side. Dhiraj had in fact filed an affidavit dated 4/11/2009 before the Committee stating on oath that the Petitioner and Dhiraj are blood relatives being second cousins of each other. 4. It is by now well settled that the area restrictions have been lifted and moreover, the affinity test is not the sole test for deciding the tribe claim and can only be used to corroborate the documents on record. However, applying both these tests, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the Petitioner. On this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Talwalkar 2
16.WP11734.2014.odt Committee calls for interference. 5. So far as the validity certificate of Dhiraj is concerned, the genealogy was duly verified by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee observed that the Petitioner has not been able to establish his blood relationship with Dhiraj. We find that on record, apart from the genealogy, is an affidavit filed by Dhiraj that he is a cousin brother of the Petitioner. The affidavit of Dhiraj has not been adverted to at all by the Committee.
In such view of the matter, we were inclined to allow the Petition in view of the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur1. However, as the affidavit of Dhiraj and verified genealogy has not been adverted to in its correct perspective by the Scrutiny Committee, in view of the persuasive submissions made by the learned AGP, we are inclined to remand the matter to Scrutiny Committee for a fresh
consideration of the tribe claim, by setting aside the impugned
order.
6.
Hence, the following order is passed : (i) The impugned order dated 22/4/2014 of the Respondent 1
2010(6) Mh.L.J.401 Talwalkar 3
16.WP11734.2014.odt No. 2 Scrutiny Committee is set aside. (ii) The tribe claim of the Petitioner be considered afresh by the Respondent No. 2 on its own merits and in accordance with law. (iii) It is open for the Petitioner to rely upon additional document in support of his case. (iv) Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No. 2 on 5th October, 2026 at 11 a.m. (v) The Committee shall decide tribe claim within a period of 4 months from the date of the Petitioners’s appearance. (vi) Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Talwalkar 4