Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5715 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5554 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION NO.5715 OF 2022 Dattatray s/o Janardhan Pise, age: 41 years, occupation: agriculturist, r/o Gopalkhed, post Gandhigram, taluka and district Akola. ….. Petitioner. :: V E R S U S :: Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Old by pass Road, Chaprashipura, Amravati, through its Vice Chairman/Jt.Commissioner. ….. Respondent. WRIT PETITION NO.5554 OF 2023 Amol s/o Janardhan Pise, age: 39 years, occupation: agriculturist, r/o Gopalkhed, post Gandhigram, taluka and district Akola. ….. Petitioner. :: V E R S U S :: Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Old by pass Road, Chaprashipura, Amravati, through its Vice Chairman/Jt.Commissioner. ….. Respondent. .....1/- 2026:BHC-NAG:10185-DB Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 2 ================================ Shri A.P.Kalmegh, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri S.S.Hulke, AGP for the Respondent. ================================ CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE & NIVEDITA P.MEHTA, JJ. DATE : 06/08/2026 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Nivedita P.Mehta) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 1. Since both the writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the same Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and involve identical questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. .....2/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 3 2. Heard Shri A.P. Kalmegh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri S.S. Hulke, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent. 3. The petitioners, who are real brothers, have instituted the present writ petitions challenging the common order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as "the Scrutiny Committee"), whereby their claim of belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated. 4. The petitioners claim to belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. Their caste claims were referred by their respective employers to the Scrutiny Committee for verification in accordance with law. Upon receipt of the proposals, the Scrutiny Committee caused an enquiry to be conducted through the Police Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report, whereafter the petitioners were .....3/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 4 afforded an opportunity to submit their explanation to the adverse material collected during the vigilance enquiry. 5. During the course of the vigilance enquiry, the Vigilance Cell collected certain documentary evidence from Village Pimpalkhuta and Village Madhan. One such document, pertaining to the year 1912, records the birth of a male child to one Thanya, who was described as the petitioners' great- great-grandfather, wherein the caste was recorded as "Bhat." The Vigilance Cell also relied upon birth entries of the years 1918 and 1921 relating to children born to Narayan, stated to be the petitioners' great-great-grandfather, wherein the caste was likewise recorded as "Bhat." On the basis of these entries, the Vigilance Cell expressed doubt regarding the petitioners' tribal status. 6. The petitioners, in their explanation, specifically disputed the relationship with the persons whose caste was recorded as "Bhat", contending that they were not their blood .....4/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 5 relatives and that the said documents did not pertain to their genealogical lineage. The explanation, however, did not find favour with the Scrutiny Committee. By the impugned common order, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioners' caste claims primarily on the basis of the aforesaid documentary entries collected during the vigilance enquiry, coupled with findings relating to lack of affinity and non- satisfaction of the area restriction test. 7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid common order of invalidation, the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. In support of their claim, the petitioners have placed reliance upon several pre-independence and post- independence public documents pertaining to the years 1921, 1925, 1930, 1933, 1947, 1948 and 1951, wherein the caste of their blood relatives is consistently recorded as "Thakur." The .....5/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 6 documents relied upon by the petitioners before the Scrutiny Committee are as follows: Sr. N o Type of document Name Relations hip applicant No.1 Caste Recor ded Occup a- tion Date of evidence 1 Birth record, village Pinpalkhuta, Tq.Chandur Bazar, district Amravati A male child born to Thanya (Bk.;k) Great great grandfate hr Bhat (Hkk V iqLrd h) -- 14.2.191 2 2 Birth record, vilalge Madhan, Tq.Chandur Bazar, district Amravati A female child born to Naraya n Great grandfate hr Bhat -- 24.4.191 8 3 Birth record, vilalge Madhan, Tq.Chandur Bazar, district Amravati A male child born to Naraya n Great grandfate hr Bhat -- 14.4.192 1 4 Death record, village Gopalkhed, Death of Naraya n Great grandfate hr Thak ur -- 4.7.1921 .....6/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 7 Taluka District Akola 5 Birth record, village Gopalkhed, Taluka District Akola A female child Soni born to Naraya n r/o out side village Great grandfate hr Thak ue -- 9.11.193 0 6 Birth record, village Gopalkhed, Taluka District Akola A male hcild Janarda nj born to Ramch andra Naraya n Grandfat her Thak ur -- 1.3.1948 7 School record, village Gopalkhed, taluka district Akola Janarda n Ramch andra Father Thak ur -- 21.6. 01.7.191 9 8 Extract of mutation register entry of land Naraya n Shamra o Thakur Great grandfath er -- -- 1958-59 9 School record, Sulocha na Aunt Thak ur Labor er 6.7.1960 .....7/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 8 vilalge Gopalkhed, taluka district Akola Ramch andra 10School record, vilalge, Gopalkhed, tq.District Akola Dadara o kashira o Mention in genealog y but relation not proved by documen tary evidences Thak ur Agricu lture 7.7.1961 11School record, vilalge Golpalkhed, Tq.District Akola Suresh Kashira o Thak ur Agricu lture 20.6.196 4 12School record, village Gopalkhed, tqluka and district Akola Gajana n kashira o Thak ur Agricu lture 15.8.196 5 13School record, village Gopalkhed, Tq. Dist Akola Vanmal a Ramch andra Applicant s Aunt Thak ur Agricu lture 24.7.196 8 14School record, village Gopalkhed, Tq.District Akola Dattatr ay Janarda n Pise Applicant No.1 Thak ur Agricu lture 1.7.1987 .....8/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 9 15Scholl record, village Gopalkhed, Tq.Dist Akola Amol Janarda n Pise Applicant No.2 Hind u Thak ur Agricu lture 8.7.1989 ` 9. Shri A.P. Kalmegh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Scrutiny Committee has committed a manifest error in invalidating the petitioners' caste claims without properly considering the explanation submitted by them in response to the Vigilance Cell Report. It is contended that the impugned order is founded principally upon certain adverse entries procured during the vigilance enquiry, despite the specific stand taken by the petitioners that the said entries do not pertain to their blood relatives. According to the learned counsel, the Scrutiny Committee has failed to appreciate the detailed explanation furnished by the petitioners demonstrating that the persons whose caste was recorded as "Bhat" have no genealogical connection with the petitioners .....9/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 10 and, therefore, the said documents could not have been relied upon for adjudicating their caste claims. 10. It is further submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously rejected the petitioners' claims by applying the tests of affinity and area restriction, although the concept of area restriction in relation to Scheduled Tribes no longer survives in view of the settled legal position. It is urged that the Committee has thus taken into consideration wholly irrelevant material while ignoring the cogent documentary evidence produced by the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have produced several authentic pre-constitutional documents consistently recording the caste of their blood relatives as "Thakur", the genuineness of which has neither been doubted nor has the Scrutiny Committee recorded any finding that such documents were fabricated, manipulated or procured by fraud. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is unsustainable in law. .....10/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 11 11. Per contra, Shri S.S. Hulke, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent–Scrutiny Committee, supported the impugned order. He submitted that the vigilance enquiry unearthed documentary evidence containing caste entries contrary to the petitioners' claim and that the Scrutiny Committee, upon due consideration of the entire material on record, rightly invalidated the caste claims. According to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee are based upon appreciation of the evidence available on record and do not warrant interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 12. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. We have also carefully perused the original record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee, including the documentary evidence relied upon by the parties and the Vigilance Cell Report. For the sake of convenience and to appreciate the rival .....11/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 12 contentions, the genealogical tree of the petitioners is reproduced hereinbelow: Bk.kth ihls & xksikG[ksM ukjk;.k & xksikG[ksM vuql;k ‘kkejko lkseoa’kh & xksikG[ksM dk’khukFk iRuh Onkjdk Mksaxs & [kkexko lksuh ukjk;.k lkseoa’kh & xksikG[ksM euksgj ckcqjko izdk’k lqjs’k nknkjko xtkuu tkuk/kZu nzksink m”kk egknso oku[kMs panzdkar totkG VkdG?kkV eksjs dkjatk YkM nRrk nRrk=; veksy eaxyk Perusal of the Vigilance Cell Report would reveal that the old documents obtained by them are also produced by the petitioners and if the remarks of the Vigilance Cell are noted, they referred to the documents of the years 1925, 1933, 1948 and 1930 and have concluded that the certified copies of .....12/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 13 Kotwal Books and the other record establish the claim of the petitioners that they belongs to caste “Thakur.” 13. It is also an undisputed position on record that the petitioners' real paternal uncle, Prakash Kashirao Pise, has been issued a Caste Validity Certificate certifying him to belong to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe pursuant to the judgment of this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 6647 of 2022. Consequently, the respondent–Scrutiny Committee has itself accepted the tribal status of a close blood relative of the petitioners from the same paternal lineage. Once the caste claim of a near blood relative emanating from the same genealogy has been validated, the claim of other members of the same family ordinarily deserves to receive similar treatment unless the Committee records cogent reasons demonstrating distinguishing features, suppression of material facts, fraud, or any other exceptional circumstance warranting a departure. In the absence of such distinguishing factors, rejection of the petitioners' caste claims would result in .....13/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 14 inconsistent and anomalous findings within the same family, thereby creating uncertainty regarding the caste status of members belonging to a common lineage. The Scrutiny Committee is expected to maintain consistency in its adjudicatory process where the claims are founded upon an admitted genealogy and substantially similar ancestral documentary evidence. Any contrary determination, without justifiable reasons, would be arbitrary and inconsistent with the principles governing administrative decision-making. 14. The first document relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee is the birth entry pertaining to one "Thanya", referred to at page 4 of the impugned order, relating to Village Pimpalkhuta. A careful scrutiny of the material on record indicates that the said document does not support the conclusion drawn by the Committee. The petitioners have produced a document dated 29.06.1923, the genuineness whereof has been verified by the Vigilance Cell itself, which shows that the name of the petitioners' ancestor is "Khanaji" .....14/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 15 and not "Thanya". Similarly, the name of the father is shown as Narayan, and the genealogy emerging from the verified documents does not correspond with the person referred to in the adverse entry. Despite such verified documentary evidence, the Scrutiny Committee proceeded to rely upon the isolated entry without examining whether it actually pertained to the petitioners' lineage. Equally, the Committee has failed to assign any reasons for discarding the numerous old documents consistently recording the caste of the petitioners' ancestors as "Thakur", though those documents also stood verified by the Vigilance Cell. 15. The second adverse document relied upon by the Scrutiny Committee is a birth entry of the year 1918 from Village Madhan recording the caste of a daughter of one Narayan as "Bhat." The petitioners have specifically disputed the applicability of this entry to their genealogy. From the genealogical tree and the verified ancestral records, it emerges that Narayan was the only son of Khanaji (incorrectly .....15/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 16 referred to as "Thanaji" in the impugned order). The petitioners have pointed out that, having regard to the dates reflected in the ancestral records, it is factually impossible for the said Narayan to have fathered a daughter in the year 1918, as he himself would have been of a very young age. This circumstance casts serious doubt on the identity of the person referred to in the impugned entry and prima facie indicates that the document pertains to an altogether different family. Although this explanation was specifically incorporated in the petitioners' reply to the Vigilance Cell Report, the Scrutiny Committee has neither examined nor dealt with the said contention while recording its findings. 16. The impugned order further reveals that the Scrutiny Committee has doubted the petitioners' claim on the premise that they do not hail from an area traditionally inhabited by members of the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. Such reasoning cannot be sustained. The Committee has failed to accord due weight to the pre-constitutional documentary evidence .....16/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 17 produced by the petitioners, which consistently records the caste of their blood relatives as "Thakur." It is well settled that such contemporaneous pre-constitutional public documents carry greater evidentiary and probative value than later entries and cannot be ignored in favour of isolated or doubtful contrary material. The Committee has thus misdirected itself by placing undue reliance upon area restrictions and isolated adverse entries while overlooking the overwhelming documentary evidence supporting the petitioners' claim. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Anand vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, reported in (2012)1 SCC 113. In the said decision, the Supreme Court has held that greater evidentiary value must ordinarily be attached to genuine pre-independence documentary evidence, as such documents are less susceptible to manipulation and constitute the best evidence regarding the caste status of a family. The Court has further held that .....17/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 18 the affinity test is only a corroborative aid and not a determinative or litmus test for adjudicating a tribe claim. The principles enunciated therein have a direct bearing on the controversy involved in the present petitions. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment 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 .....18/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 19 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 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.” .....19/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 20 18. The Hon' ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in MANU/SC/0299/2023 has authoritatively explained the scope of vigilance enquiry and the evidentiary value of the affinity test. In paragraph 36, the Supreme Court has held that a reference to the Vigilance Cell can be made only when the Scrutiny Committee, after considering the material produced by the claimant, records reasons for its dissatisfaction with such material. It has further been held that the affinity test is only a corroborative tool and cannot be treated as conclusive for determining a tribe claim. The findings of the affinity test are required to be evaluated along with all other evidence having probative value, and the affinity test by itself cannot constitute the sole basis for either accepting or rejecting a caste claim. 19. In the present case, the record reveals that the Scrutiny Committee repeatedly directed the Vigilance Cell to undertake further enquiries with a view to collecting documents relating .....20/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 21 to the petitioners' ancestors and blood relatives. Pursuant thereto, the Vigilance Cell unearthed a few isolated entries recording the caste as "Pustaki-Bhat" and "Bhat." The petitioners specifically objected to the reliance placed upon those entries by contending that the persons to whom the entries pertained were not members of their family or blood lineage. Significantly, the Scrutiny Committee has not recorded any finding establishing the genealogical relationship between those individuals and the petitioners. In the absence of such a finding, the isolated adverse entries could not have been treated as evidence capable of dislodging the petitioners' otherwise consistent documentary record. 20. On the contrary, the petitioners have produced a series of genuine pre-constitutional public documents consistently recording the caste of their forefathers and blood relatives as "Thakur." The authenticity of those documents has neither been doubted nor has the Scrutiny Committee recorded any finding that they were fabricated, manipulated or procured by .....21/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 22 fraud. It is a settled principle that genuine pre-independence documents possess the highest evidentiary and probative value in adjudication of caste claims. Consequently, isolated and doubtful contrary entries, particularly those whose nexus with the petitioners' genealogy has not been established, cannot outweigh or displace such contemporaneous documentary evidence. 21. Equally unsustainable is the reliance placed by the Scrutiny Committee upon the affinity test and the concept of area restriction. The affinity test is merely a corroborative circumstance and cannot override reliable documentary evidence. With changing social conditions, migration, urbanisation and assimilation of tribal communities into the mainstream, strict adherence to traditional customs and practices cannot invariably be expected. Therefore, failure to satisfy every parameter of the affinity test cannot by itself justify rejection of an otherwise well-supported tribe claim. Likewise, the Committee has committed a manifest error in .....22/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 23 invoking area restrictions, notwithstanding the settled legal position that such restrictions ceased to have relevance after the amendment to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order. 22. The Hon' ble Supreme Court in Jaywant Dilip Pawar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors, reported in 2018(5) ALL MR 975 has categorically held that, after the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order (Amendment) Act, 1976, the earlier area restrictions applicable to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe no longer survive and every person establishing that he belongs to the "Thakur" community included at Entry No. 44 of Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, is entitled to the benefit of Scheduled Tribe status irrespective of the geographical area from which he hails. The Supreme Court has further observed that insistence upon proving residence in the erstwhile specified areas is wholly irrelevant while adjudicating such claims. .....23/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 24 23. In the present case, the impugned order demonstrates that the Scrutiny Committee has attached undue importance to the affinity test, area restrictions and a few isolated adverse entries while completely overlooking the overwhelming pre- constitutional documentary evidence produced by the petitioners and the admitted validity certificate issued to their real paternal uncle from the same blood lineage. The Committee has also failed to record any finding establishing that the adverse entries relied upon by it pertain to the petitioners' genealogy. The approach adopted by the Committee is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in Anand, Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti, and Jaywant Dilip Pawar. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from manifest non- application of mind and cannot be sustained in law. 24. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the pre- constitutional documentary evidence, the absence of any material discrediting the genuineness of those documents, the .....24/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 25 validity certificate already issued to a close paternal blood relative, and the settled legal principles governing adjudication of tribe claims, we are satisfied that the petitioners have successfully established that they belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the respondent–Scrutiny Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside. The common order dated 17.08.2021 passed by the respondent – Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati, invalidating the caste claims of the petitioners, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is declared that the petitioners belong to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, recognized at Entry No. 44 of Part IX of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, as amended.he respondent– Scrutiny Committee shall issue Caste Validity Certificates in favour of the petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ .....25/- Judgment 13 wp5715.22 & 5554.23.odt 26 petitions are allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE !! Bhushan r.Wankhede !! .....26/-