966 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 966 WRIT PETITION NO. 11735 OF 2017 Sandip Shrikant Ahire VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Mr.Arun H. Koralkar, Mr.Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondents/State ... CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 10TH APRIL 2026 PER COURT (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J. ):- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for Respondent/State. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there being oldest documents having probative value of pre-independence era pertaining to his cousin grandfather of the year 1938 showing his caste as ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe the said document has been discarded by Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee and has Narwade 2026:BHC-AUG:16303-DB 966 -2- invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner solely on the ground of affinity test and area restriction. The petitioner therefore urged that since there is oldest documents pertaining to pre independence era showing the caste of the forefathers of the petitioner as ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe, Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in discarding the said oldest documents and passing the impugned order. He, therefore, urge to set aside the impugned order and allowing the Writ Petition. 4. Per contra, learned AGP would support the impugned order thereby contending that Respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee has rightly considered the aspect with regard to the affinity test as well as area restriction. He, therefore, urge that the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP, we find that this Court has already taken a view in the case of Abasaheb Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No.7472/2021 with other connected writ petitions by judgment and order dated 25.02.2026 holding that the affinity test is not a litmus test for deciding the tribe claim and in the light of oldest documents the benefit should be given to the claimants. Narwade 966 -3- 6. For better appreciation, we reproduce the observations of this Court in the case of Abasaheb s/o. Gulabrao Thakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) which reads thus :- “12. Learned AGP also sought to contend that though the documents produced by the petitioner is showing caste as ‘Thakur’ that ipso facto does not mean that the petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe when ‘Thakur’ caste is also shown in Upper Caste, however, this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region Nandurbar and others decided on 11.03.2025 in Writ Petition No.9283 of 2012 relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Writ Petition No. 11241 of 2012, has dealt with the similar issue. The relevant observations of this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra) and more particularly paragraph No.9 reads thus : “9. ……………………………………………………. In this regard, a useful reference can be made to the decision of the Division Bench in the matter of Ravindra Pralhadrao Khare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in Writ Petition No.11241/2012. The coordinate bench had occasion to deal with the issue that if only Thakur is mentioned as caste in pre-constitutional document, then what would be the consequences. We reproduce paragraph nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6: 3. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be necessary to make a reference to the impugned judgment and order. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has referred to the school record of the Petitioner's father which Committee has also referred to the death extract of the grand father of the discloses that in the year 1948, his caste was recorded as "Thakur, The Scrutiny Petitioner which shows that in the year 1947, his caste has been shown as "Thakur. The third important document referred to by the Scrutiny Committee is the service book of the Petitioner's father which shows that his caste was "Thakur. These three documents have been brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by making following observations: As said earlier, the only caste entry as Thakur does not clarifies whether the incumbent belongs Narwade 966 -4- to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or Thakur, non-tribal group. Hence, though the document is oldest, the same cannot be treated as conclusive in nature while determining the tribe claim of the applicant. 4. We fail to understand as to how the Caste Scrutiny Committee expects. the documents of the years 1947-1948 to mention as to whether the caste "Thakur" belongs to the category of Scheduled Tribe or the category of non-tribal. In the years 1947-1948, such entries could not have been made. Another finding recorded by the Tribunal is that the Petitioner could not establish his affinity to the caste and to the area. On this aspect, it will be necessary to make a reference to what is held by the Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra) in Paragraph 22. The Paragraph 22 of the said decision reads thus: 18. It is manifest from the afore-extracted paragraph that the genuineness of a caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also on the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits etc., of the applicant. However, it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Nevertheless, we feel that the following broad parameters could be kept in view while dealing with a caste claim: (i) While dealing with documentary evidence, greater reliance may be placed on pre Independence documents because they furnish a higher degree of probative value to the declaration of status of a caste, as compared to post Independence documents. In case the applicant is the first generation ever to attend school, the availability of any documentary evidence becomes difficult, but that ipso facto does not call for the rejection of his claim. In fact the mere fact that he is the first generation ever to attend school, some benefit of doubt in favour of the applicant may be given. Needless to add that in the event of a doubt on the credibility of a document, its veracity has to be tested on the basis of oral evidence, for which an opportunity Narwade 966 -5- has to be afforded to the applicant; (ii) While applying the affinity test, which focuses on the ethnological connections with the scheduled tribe, a cautious approach has to be adopted. A few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor. However, with the migrations, modernisation and contact with other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of the tribe. Hence, affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a Scheduled Tribe. Nevertheless, the claim by an applicant that he is a part of a scheduled tribe and is entitled to the benefit extended to that tribe, cannot per se be disregarded on the ground that his present traits do not match his tribes peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. Thus, the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject a claim." (Underlines added) 5. The Apex Court has held that the affinity test may be used to corroborate the documentary evidence but should not be the sole criteria to reject the caste claim. 6. In the present case, three material documents which we have referred to earlier have been brushed aside by the Scrutiny Committee by recording reasons which are not at all justified and thus, the claim is rejected primarily on the basis of the affinity test. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anand (supra), only on the basis of the affinity test, the caste claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected." 13. It would also be apposite to refer to paragraph No.10 of the Judgment of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra) which reads thus : Narwade 966 -6- “10. The present case is squarely covered by the principles laid down by the coordinate bench referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Anand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others (supra). Even reliance on the affinity test cannot be a sole criteria to reject the claim. The finding recorded by the Committee for discarding the pre-constitutional record is perverse which is appearing on page no.48 of the paper-book.” 14. So far as the contention of learned AGP relying on the findings recorded by the respondent No.2/Scrutiny Committee regarding various categories of Scheduled Tribe with synonymity is concerned, no doubt the Scrutiny Committee has relied on five categories of caste ‘Thakur’ however, we are concerned with Serial No.1 as it refers to ‘Thakur’ which is found Serial No.44 of the Constitutional Order. Serial Nos.2 and 3 are ‘Thakar’ and therefore, they are irrelevant. Serial Nos.4 and 5 refers to ‘Thakur’ of upper caste or some other caste. 15. We however, find that there was no occasion for either the petitioner or his forefathers to fraudulently record their caste as ‘Thakur’ so as to claim themselves of belonging to Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’. In the light of documents of pre- independence era, we are of the considered view that the petitioner and his forefathers have to be treated as Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur’ more so in the absence of any material to show that they belong to the upper caste ‘Thakur’. We have already held that one entry showing the caste of petitioner's uncle as ‘Brahmbhat’, cannot discard the previous entries showing the caste of petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. We are therefore, of the considered view that the case of petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Lahu Dashrath Thakur (supra). 16. Last but not the least, it is contended by learned AGP that in the light of Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in 2023 (16) SCC 415 as well as the subsequent order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 12.12.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., the Scrutiny Committee can take the affinity test as one of the relevant factor for invalidation of tribe claim and this exactly what has been done by the Scrutiny Committee while invalidating the petitioner’s tribe claim of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe since, petitioner has failed to satisfy Narwade 966 -7- the affinity test. 17. In that regard, it would be profitable to refer to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 21 of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra). “21. In the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 (Shilpa Vishnu Thakur's case"), the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has noted that people having the surname "Thakur" belong to both forward castes and various backward castes. Therefore, the Full Bench may be right in saying that in every case, only on the basis of the surname Thakur, it cannot be concluded by the Scrutiny Committee that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribe Thakur notified in the Entry 44 of the Maharashtra list. However, we must note that in the case of a person having the surname Thakur, there may be evidence in the form of entry of the name of the caste as a Tribe or Scheduled Tribe in the land records, school or college records or any official records concerning the applicant or his ancestors. Only on the ground that the persons having the surname Thakur may belong to a forward caste as well, it is not necessary that in every case, the Scrutiny Committee should send the case to Vigilance Cell. It all depends on the nature of the documents produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and the probative value of the documents. Therefore, whenever a caste claim regarding Thakur Scheduled Tribe is considered, the Caste Scrutiny Committee in every case should not mechanically refer the case to the Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry including affinity test. The reference to the Vigilance Cell can be made only if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the material produced by the applicant.” 18. It is clear from the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court that it would depend on the nature of the document produced before the Scrutiny Committee for referring the matter to the vigilance cell enquiry. We have already observed that the documents pertaining to 1919,1925 and 1934 cannot be brushed aside which unequivocally shows the tribe claim of petitioner’s forefathers of pertaining to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe. We therefore, do not find any substance in contention of learned AGP in that regard.” 7. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned order is Narwade 966 -8- perverse and therefore is liable to be quashed and set aside. We therefore pass the following order :- :: O R D E R :: i. Writ Petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 24.05.2017 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe is hereby quashed and set aside. iii. Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe as early as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from today. [ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.] Narwade