Judgment 1 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 4324 OF 2025 Manjusha D/o Narayanrao Peshwe (Manjusha W/o Narendra Thakur) Aged about 43 yrs, Occ. Housewife, R/o Old Khetan Nagar, Koulkhed, Near S.N. College, Akola, Distt. Akola. …. PETITIONER // VERSUS // The Vice-Chairman/Member-Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati. …. RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Preeti Rane Adv. for the petitioner. Mrs. Hemlata Dhande AGP for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR AND NANDESH.S.DESHPANDE , JJ . DATE O N RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 1 3.01 .202 6 DATE ON PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 23 . 01.2026 JUDGMENT : (Per – SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2026:BHC-NAG:1294-DB Judgment 2 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 3. By this petition, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 passed by respondent - Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as “the Scrutiny Committee”) whereby the claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. 4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s caste claim was initially invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on 31.08.2001, which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 3556/2001. This Court, by judgment dated 26.03.2015, partly allowed the petition and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry due to improper vigilance inquiry. 5. It is further contended that pursuant to remand, a fresh vigilance inquiry was conducted between 2019 and 2020 and a report dated 18.09.2020 was submitted, during which the statement of the petitioner’s father was recorded for affinity test. The petitioner submits that undisputed pre-constitutional documents showing caste entry as “Thakur” were procured by the vigilance officer and also produced by the petitioner, which Judgment 3 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt ought to have been considered positively. In fact, certain adverse entries of “Patil Kunbi” from the years 1919 and 1921 were relied upon by the vigilance cell, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 07.04.2025. 6. The petitioner contends that the said adverse entries do not pertain to her or her lineage, as several persons with similar names reside in the same village but belong to different castes, rendering such entries unreliable and not directly linked to the petitioner, and therefore, they cannot outweigh the consistent documentary evidence. 7. For the sake of brevity the family tree placed on record by the petitioner is reproduced below:- ekghr ukgh ekghr ukgh l[kkjke Hkxoarjko eqyxh uko vkBor ukgh ljLork ds’kojko okeujko d`”.kjko ‘kkarkckbZ ukjk;.kjko oklqnsojko eqyckG ukgh irh ukjk;.k gsMkÅ xtkuu vYdk vfuy larks”k vfurk eaxs’k jkst’k fuys’k eaxyk eukst eatq”kk egs’k Judgment 4 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 8. The documents pertaining to period prior to cut-off date were placed on record by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee are as under:- Sr. No. Type of Document Name on the document Relation with the petitioner Tribe Date 1. Birth entry of a girl child Bhagwan Sakharam Thakur Great grandfather Thakur 16.02.1923 2. Birth entry of a male child Bhagu Sakharam Thakur Great grandfather Thakur 13.12.1924 3. Birth entry of a male child Bhagu Sakharam Thakur Great grandfather Thakur 1928 4. Birth of a daughter named Parbati Bhagu Sakharam Thakur Great grandfather Thakur 22.10.1930 5. Birth extract of son named Vasanta Bhagwan Great grandfather Thakur 25.11.1947 6. Batai patra Bhagwan Sakharam Thakur Great grandfather Thakur 06.04.1939 7. Sale Deed Bhagwan Sakharam Thakur Great grandfather Thakur 29.01.1942 9. The petitioner submits that she and her close blood relatives have consistently been recorded as belonging to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe in school records, revenue documents, Judgment 5 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt and validity certificates issued to relatives. Despite the above, the Scrutiny Committee, by order dated 21.04.2025, invalidated the petitioner’s caste claim on grounds of documentary evidence, affinity, area restriction, and reliance on certain judicial precedents. 10. The petitioner contends that reliance on invalidation of her relatives’ caste claims is misplaced, particularly when one cousin’s SLP is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court and another cousin has been granted validity by this Court on 25.07.2025 in W.P. No.5871/2024. 11. It is contended that non-challenge of invalidation orders by some of the relatives cannot prejudice the petitioner’s independent claim, which needs to be adjudicated on its own merits in accordance with the law laid down in Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, 1994 SCC (6) 241. The petitioner submits that due to prolonged caste claim proceedings since 2001 and the impugned invalidation, she is unable to avail employment under the Scheduled Tribe category and is likely to become age-barred. Judgment 6 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of her contentions, placed reliance on the following citations- a) WP no. 5871 of 2024 (Gajanan Wamanrao Peshwe VS Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others). b) WP no. 14111 of 2021 (Mangesh Panditrao Thakur VS State of Maharashtra and others). c) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,[2023 (2) Mh.L.J.785] 13. On the contrary, learned AGP for the respondent – Scrutiny Committee supports the impugned order and submitted that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee is legal, just, and based on proper appreciation of the material on record, and does not suffer from any perversity warranting interference. 14. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties, gone through the impugned order, documents placed on record and considered the citations relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Judgment 7 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 15. There is validity issued to the cousin of the petitioner namely Gajanan Wamanrao Peshwe. The certificate is issued pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No.5871 of 2024 subject to outcome of Special Leave Petition No.26270 of 2018. It appears that the petitioner has filed as many as 14 documents consistently showing entry of Thakur. Out of these documents, 7 documents are pertaining to pre-independence period. The Scrutiny Committee observed that in respect of Mangesh Krushnarao Peshwe cousin of the petitioner, his claim was invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld by the High Court in Writ Petition No.4198 of 2005. The said judgment is challenged by the said Mangesh Krushnarao Peshwe by filing Special Leave Petition No.26270 of 2018. In respect of Gajanan Wamanrao Peshwe, who is cousin of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee observed that it has invalidated the caste claim of Gajanan Peshwe on 31/07/2024 and there was Writ Petition No.5871 of 2024 filed against the order of the Scrutiny Committee. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the said petition is allowed and the Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue caste certificate of Thakur Scheduled Tribe. However, the issuance of caste validity certificate was subject to outcome of Special Leave Petition No.26270 of 2018 filed by Mangesh Peshwe. Thus, the reason given for not considering the document pertaining to Gajanan Peshwe at present Judgment 8 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt does not survive. It is informed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court remanded the matter of Mangesh Peshwe to High Court for fresh consideration. 16. It is further observed by the Scrutiny Committee that the claim of one Rajesh Krushnarao Peshwe cousin of the petitioner was invalidated and he has not challenged the same. Therefore, it can be presumed that they are not belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, in the case of Mangala Narayan Peshwe, there is no challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating her caste claim. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment in Mangesh s/o Panditrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.14111/2021 with connected matter, decided on 12/03/2025), wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Aurangabad held in paras-13 and 14 as under: “13. True it is that there is an invalidation of Jyoti Narayan Vishve's certificate and the order has attained finality right up to the Supreme Court. However, we have been consistently holding that the decision of the scrutiny committee would only bind the claimant and would not bind the blood relatives, for the simple reason that they are not parties to such adjudication and that a blood relative may be able to substantiate his claim by leading cogent and relevant evidence sufficient enough Judgment 9 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt to discharge the burden cast upon him under section 8 of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. 14. In the light of above, assuming for the sake of arguments that the validities were obtained by the petitioners' relatives mentioned herein-above, deliberately concealing the order of invalidation of a similar claim of Jyoti Narayan Vishve, that cannot be a decisive factor in the light of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra).” 18. In the matter of Gajanan Wamanrao Peshwe v. The Vice- Chairman/Member Secretary, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others (Writ Petition No.5871 of 2024, decided on 25/07/2025), wherein this Court observed in para- 17 as under: “17. It will be pertinent to note that Respondent No.1- Committee recorded finding that pre-independence document produced by Petitioner, particularly dated 20.06.1950 i.e. School Leaving Certificate of father as 'Thakur'; dated 15.02.1923 i.e. birth entry of daughter shows caste "Thakur'; dated 11.01.1915 i.e. loan entry of great grandfather in revenue and school entry shows "Thakur'; however, said entries being on documents, Petitioner cannot be held to belong to the caste "Thakur' Schedule Tribe. From this finding, it is clear that Respondent No.1-Committee discarded the pre- independence documents which is having more probative value without. reason. Hence, impugned order is prima facie illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.” Judgment 10 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 19. The documents pertaining to Bhagwan Vald Sakharam of 1923, 1924, 1928, 1930, 1947 all documents consistently showing the entry of ‘Thakur’. The Scrutiny Committee relied on the two documents in respect of Bhagwan Sakharam dated 25/12/1919 and 06/09/1921 showing the entry as “Patil Kunbi”. It is admitted by the Scrutiny Committee that the documents at Sr.Nos.2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are pertaining to the petitioner, his father, grandfather, containing revenue and school records wherein the caste is shown as “Thakur”. It is also admitted by the Scrutiny Committee that Bhagwan Sakharam gave birth to one baby girl in the year 2023 wherein his caste is shown as “Thakur”. However, these documents were not considered by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that only because “Thakur” is mentioned in the documents, that is not the conclusive proof that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee specifically relied on the entries of 2019 and 1921, wherein the caste is mentioned as “Patil Kunbi”. It is observed by the Scrutiny Committee that these documents were obtained by the Government Officials. Therefore, they are having more probative value. The documents produced by the petitioner are school record, revenue record, extracts of birth/death registers, they are also having equal probative value and they cannot simply be brushed aside. Judgment 11 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 20. Similarly, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that Thakur/Thakar of Scheduled Tribe Category were residing in specific geographical area i.e. Pune, Ahemadnagar, Nashik, Thane, Kulaba (Now Raigad). There is general statement made in the order of the Scrutiny Committee that in the year 1976 after lifting of area restrictions, the people residing in all over Maharashtra started claiming that they belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. As there is no evidence produced by the petitioner that these people migrated from those areas, they cannot be treated as Thakur Scheduled Tribe. There are all general allegations made by the Scrutiny Committee in its judgment. In view of removal of area restriction in 1976, there is no substance in the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee. 21. It appears that the petitioner denied relationship with the person in the documents showing caste ‘Patil Kunbi’. Even if it is presumed that there is such entry, there are other consistent entries of Thakur that too of prior to 1950 period. At the relevant time, the forefathers of the petitioner were not aware about the benefits of which they will be conferred in the year 1950 being belonging to Thakur caste, therefore, those documents cannot simply be brushed aside showing caste Thakur. Judgment 12 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “36. Thus, to conclude, we hold that: (a) …………... (b) For the reasons which we have recorded, affinity test cannot be conclusive either way. When an affinity test is conducted by the Vigilance Cell, the result of the test along with all other material on record having probative value will have to be taken into consideration by the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste validity claim; and (c) In short, affinity test is not a litmus test to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.” 23. In view of the fact that blood relatives from the paternal side of the petitioner is granted validity certificate, there is no reason for not considering the same for issuance of validity certificate to the petitioner. In view of the entries prior to 1950 consistently showing the caste as “Thakur” in the school records, revenue records and extract of birth and death registers, only two entries showing the entry of ‘Patil Kunbi’, the other documents prior to 1950 cannot be Judgment 13 J-WP No.4324.2025.odt discarded and therefore, we deem it appropriate to allow the present petition in the following terms. ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed in Case No.lvk@vtizrl@ve/MNP/I-37/2000-2001 by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) It is held and declared that the petitioner has duly established that he belongs to caste “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe on the basis of pre-independence documents and accordingly, the respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue caste validity certificate in favour of petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. 24. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. (NANDESH.S.DESHPANDE, J.) (SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) KHUNTE