( 1 ) wp7514.24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 960 WRIT PETITION NO. 7514 OF 2024 DATTA GANGARAM SUBANWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2- State. Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 18.08.2026 PC :- 01. Heard Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. M.N. Navandar, learned Advocate for respondent No.3. 02. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging a judgment and order passed by respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee dated 02.07.2024, invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe – Koli Mahadev. While deciding the claim, the Member of the Scrutiny Committee observed that the petitioner has failed to prove a tribe claim. The entries showing tribe as Mahadev Koli are of recent origin. The first entry is of 1987 in respect of sisters of the 2026:BHC-AUG:37433-DB ( 2 ) wp7514.24 petitioner, which appears in school leaving certificate. There is no document of pre-independence era on record supporting claim of the petitioner. It is further observed that some of the relatives of the petitioner are shown to be Koli in school record. The Scrutiny Committee considered judgment in the case of Shivaji Shankar Baikar Vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 9321 of 2016. On all these counts, the claim of the petitioner is refused. 03. Learned Advocate Mr. Yeramwar for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is from the first generation taking education in the near relatives. Therefore, there are no entries or school record in respect of father, grandfather etc. The Scrutiny Committee though has given reason that in the caste column of relatives of the petitioner caste is shown to be “Koli”, however, no any relation is shown with them. He submits that the relation shown with the petitioner is only as relative without specifying as to how they are related to the petitioner. He thus submits that those entries cannot be considered as contra entries. In genealogy, names of all those persons whose caste is only shown as “Koli” are not shown. 04. Learned Advocate further argued that though when the claim ( 3 ) wp7514.24 was pending before the Scrutiny Committee, he could not get any document of pre-independence era. After the decision he again took rigorous search of the record. In his attempt he found one document i.e. sale-deed executed by one Sayana s/o. Rama Bedadewad in favour of Hulappa s/o. Ramanna Subanwad, who happens to be grand father of the petitioner, wherein caste of said Hulappa is shown as Mahadev Koli. He thus submits that if this document is considered, it would strongly support the case of the petitioner. For that purpose one chance needs to be given to prove the document before the Scrutiny Committee. He thus submits that at least a case is made out to remand the matter back to the Committee. 05. Learned AGP vehemently opposes this petition. He submits that there is no proper reason coming before this Court as to why the petitioner could not produce documents before the Scrutiny Committee. He, however, accepts that there are no contra entries found. He also accepts that the persons who are shown to be belonging to “Koli” are only shown to be relatives without specific and exact relation with the petitioner. He could not give any reason as to why still the entries were not considered by the Scrutiny Committee. He submits that in the affinity test the petitioner failed to prove his affinity. He prays for ( 4 ) wp7514.24 dismissal of the petition. 06. From looking to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, it is seen that in the caste column in the cases of relatives of the petitioner, caste is shown as “Mahadev Koli”. Though entries are of recent origin, still there is no contra entry found. Where specific relation is shown with the petitioner, the entries were shown as “Koli Mahadev”. Only “Koli” are in respect of the persons, where relation with the petitioner is not mentioned. This Court thus has doubt whether they are really related to the petitioner. So far as affinity test is concerned, it is already held in the case of Anand Katote Vs. Committee, 2011 (6) Mh.L.J.(SC) 919 and Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Sanrakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2505 of 2022 dated 24.03.2023 that affinity test is only corroborative test. In the present case, thus, it is seen that only adverse factor is affinity test. If this Court gives chance to the petitioner to prove sale-deed dated 15.05.1948 (16 Tir 1360 fasli) and if the same is proved by the petitioner, the petitioner’s claim may become stronger. 07. Considering the above, this Court finds that a case is made out to remand this matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh ( 5 ) wp7514.24 decision. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Scrutiny Committee stands set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision. The Scrutiny Committee to look into the aspect of the sale-deed and other documents. It is thereafter the Scrutiny Committee to conclude the proceeding within six months from today. 08. No adverse action shall be taken by respondent No.3 against the petitioner for a period of six months from today or till the Scrutiny Committee decides tribe claim of the petitioner, whichever is earlier. 09. It is made clear that all the observations made in this order are only prima facie in nature. The Scrutiny Committee to arrive at conclusion independently without being influenced by the observations. 10. This Writ petition stands disposed off. [JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.] snk/2026/Aug26/wp7514.24