LSP 50 wp 7160.16.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7160 of 2015 Vilas Dnyanu Bhat Mulund (E), Mumbai-81. … Petitoner V/s. 1. State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Tribal Development Department 2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune. 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Maharashtra Police L.A. III, Worli, Mumbai 400 030. 4. Addl. Commissioner of Police East Regional Division, Chembur, Mumbai … Respondents. Mrs. Priyanka Shaw i/b. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr. N.C.Walimbe, Addl.G.P. a/w. Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, GP for the State. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK & S.M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : 27th February 2026 1/5 LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2026.03.07 16:54:40 +0530 LSP 50 wp 7160.16.doc P.C. : (Per S.M.Modak, J) 1. Heard Mr. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the petitioner/retired PSI and Mr. Walimbe, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. On the basis of tribe reservation as Thakar Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner got employment in Home Department of State of Maharashtra. He was appointed by the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai on the post of Police Constable in the year 1977 and he retired on 31st May 2011 from the post of Police Sub-Inspector. During his service his tribe certificate was sent for verification. The Committee at Thane has not accepted his tribe claim and refused to issue validity certificate as per the decision dated 30th January 2010. He was holding a tribe certificate issued by Tahsildar, Khanapur dated 29th October 1979. 3. After the decision of the Committee he filed present petition and he was protected by the interim order of this Court. He retired. 4. With the assistance of both the sides, we have gone through the decision of the Committee. The Committee predominantly refused to accept the tribe claim for following reasons: (i) There are inconsistent documents. (ii) The petitioner could not overcome the affinity test and (iii) The petitioner does not hail from the area earmarked for 2/5 LSP 50 wp 7160.16.doc Thakar tribe (produced at Page-27) (iv) The validities relied upon by the petitioner were not accepted by observing ‘the tribe claim has to be proved independently.’ 5. It is true the Committee has referred to 3 validity certificates issued to two daughters and one son of the petitioner, however, the Committee refused to act upon it for the reason the petitioner has to prove the claim independently. Committee referred to some of the decisions. About the documents there is reference in Para No.3 of the impugned order. The documents relate to relatives of the petitioner pertaining to birth, death and school record. It is true some of them are pre-constitutional documents. It is true in all these documents the tribe is not mentioned as Thakar but somewhere it is mentioned as Hindu/Bhat. 6. It is a settled law that affinity test is not a litmus test and it can be adhered to only when Committee finds the documents insufficient. It is very well true that the area restriction no more remains as a consideration for dealing with the validity claim. It is already removed. A claimant may belong to any region and need not be restricted to a particular region. This was considered by Division Bench of this Court in a case of Motilal S/o. Namdeo Pawar v/s. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and others1 1 Writ Petition No. 7/2014 3/5 LSP 50 wp 7160.16.doc in the order dated 22nd December 2017. The area restriction was removed as per the Amendment No.108/1976 enacted on 18th September 1976. The Committee was wrong in accepting it as a ground. 7. So far as 3 validities are concerned, they were issued by the Committee and they pertain to the children of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that these validity certificates are cancelled. It is even not the case that show-cause notices are issued to 3 children. The Committee must have gone through the documents relied upon by those 3 children. How a caste of children may be different from the caste of father. If this is allowed, it will create anomalous situation. 8. Even though it may be true that certain documents relied upon by the Committee refers the caste as Bhat (and not Thakar). Be that as it may, we are giving more weightage to the 3 validities granted to the 3 children. As held by this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale vs. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commitee, Akola2 and by Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharasthra3, the validities issued to close blood relatives need to be given due weightage. The respondents have not pleaded a case that vigilance was not conducted at that time. So we are inclined to allow the petition. 2 2010(6) Mh.LJ 401 3 2023 SCC Online SC 326 4/5 LSP 50 wp 7160.16.doc Hence, the following order: ORDER (1) The Writ Petition is allowed. (2) The impugned order dated 30th January 2010 passed by the respondent No.2 – Committee is quashed and set aside. (3) The respondent No.2 – Committee is directed to issue tribe validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of the order. (4) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. (S.M. MODAK, J.) (M.S.KARNIK, J.) 5/5