MOHIT ASHOK BAGULversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:43109-DB

                                                 1                 WP / 10718 / 2026



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 10718 OF 2026

              Mohit S/o Ashok Bagul
              Age : 18 years, Occu : Education,
              R/o. Dondaicha – Warwade (M CI)
              Tq. Sindkhede, Dist. Dhule                              .. Petitioner

                       Versus

              1] State of Maharashtra
                 Through Secretary,
                 Tribe Development Department,
                 Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

              2] Scheduled Tribe Certificate
                 Scrutiny Committee, Dhule,
                 Through its Member Secretary                         .. Respondents

                                                     ...
                   •   Mr. Sanjiv Deshpande, Senior Counsel i/by Mr. Sagar S. Phatale
                       And Vasant Bholankar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                   •   Mr. S. R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for Respondents – State.
                                                     ...

                            CORAM              : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                            DATE               : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026

              JUDGMENT (PER – JITENDRA JAIN, J.) :

              1.            Rule.     Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of

              learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing

              looking at the imminent urgency that the admission process for the

              NEET (UG) 2026 commences from 23.09.2026.
                                  2                    WP / 10718 / 2026


2.          After hearing the parties, this Court dictated the operative

order on 21.09.2026, allowing the petition in terms of prayer clauses

(A) and (B), wherein it was specifically mentioned that the reasons

would be recorded separately. The detailed reasoned order follows now.


3.          This petition is filed by the petitioner – student, challenging

the judgment and order passed by respondent no. 2 – Scrutiny

Committee dated 28.07.2026, whereby the tribe certificate obtained by

the petitioner has been invalidated. The petitioner further prays for a

direction to respondent no. 2 – Committee to issue validity certificate

forthwith, to enable him to take admission.


4.          The petitioner obtained a tribe certificate dated 05.07.2024

issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur, certifying that the petitioner

belongs to ‘Tokre Koli’, which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe. The

petitioner thereafter made an application to respondent no. 2 –

Committee for validation of the said certificate since he proposed to

take admission in an educational institute. The petitioner filed various

documents including the pre-constitutional documents in support of his

claim. The petitioner also filed a reply dated 13.07.2026 with the office

of respondent no. 2 in support of his claim.


5.          Respondent no. 2, by order dated 28.07.2026 rejected the

claim of the petitioner and invalidated the certificate primarily on the
                                     3                   WP / 10718 / 2026


ground that in the documents of 1939 and 1987 pertaining to the

cousin sister of grandfather and father is shown as ‘Koli’ and ‘Hindu

Koli’ respectively, though in the documents of 1918 and 1935, great

grandfather and cousin grandfather, tribe was shown as belonging to

‘Tokre Koli’.


6.              We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Deshpande for

the petitioner and Mr. Lonikar, learned AGP for the respondent – State.


7.              It is settled position that pre-constitutional documents have

a higher probative value, and in case of any contra entry, the Court

should consider pre-constitutional documents for deciding the tribe

claim. In the instant case, admittedly, the document of 24.02.1918 of

the petitioner’s great grandfather, being school leaving certificate shows

the caste as ‘Tokre Koli’.       Similarly, in the birth record of cousin

grandfather dated 13.11.1935, the caste shown is ‘Tokre Koli’. The

Committee has not doubted the genuineness of these documents, nor

any allegation regarding their genuiness formed the basis of the

impugned order. Therefore, the contention of the learned AGP for the

respondent – State that these documents might have been tampered

with, cannot be accepted.         Such a submission is purely based on

surmises.       The Vigilance Cell has also not doubted the genuineness of

these documents. Prior to 1950, there was no reservation policy
                                    4                    WP / 10718 / 2026


conferring benefits and, therefore, there could not have been any reason

for mentioning the caste as ‘Tokre Koli’, to gain any such benefit.


8.          In our view, therefore, the documents of 1918 and 1935

ought to have been accepted by the respondent – Committee in support

of the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled

Tribe.


9.          The above views are supported by decision rendered in

Writ Petition no. 5351 of 2021 (Sarla Ramchandra Thakur Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others), dated 16.07.2026 of this Court, to which one

of us (Kishore C. Sant, J.) was a party. Paragraph no. 5 of the above

decision reads as under :-

         “5. Having heard the parties, one thing is clear that there are
         undisputed entries of pre-independence period in respect of father
         and uncle of the petitioner. One entries is of 1936 and another entry
         is of 1918. This Court, thus, finds that when pre-independence
         entries are undisputed and are clear, the Committee ought to have
         given priority and considered those entries which prevail upon
         subsequent entries. It is not expected of the petitioner to show as to
         why the entries in the case of brother and sisters are made only as
         Hindu. When the petitioner has given pre-independence period
         documents, those would certainly carry weightage. ” (emphasis
         supplied).


10.         The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Veena Ashok

Godsay @ Veena Hemant Sonawane V. State of Maharashtra and others 1

has reiterated by following the decision in the case of Anand V.



1 (Civil Appeal No. 19968 of 2017 dated 29.11.2017)
                                   5                      WP / 10718 / 2026


Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims 2, that 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. The said decision of the Supreme Court

has been subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Abasaheb

Gulabrao Thakur V. State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No.

7472 of 2021 dated 25.02.2026).

11.         Learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in relying

upon the decision of this Court in the case of Durga Sharad Patil V.

State of Maharashtra and another, in Writ Petition No. 8619 of 2023

dated 20.09.2023 and more particularly paragraphs no. 7 and 8 thereof,

which read as under :-

           “7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our
           attention to the reply filed to the vigilance report. The
           petitioner has dealt with the contrary entries in para no. 10
           of the reply. We find that there is some justification in it. It
           can be seen that the entries are recorded at the instance of
           his forefathers or close relatives of the petitioners. In the
           present matter, birth and death entries were recorded prior
           to 1939, pre-independence period. There is no reason for
           recording false entry of caste to grab the benefits of social
           reservation at the relevant time. There was no distinction
           between 'Koli' or "Tokre Koli'. Caste 'Koli' might have been
           regarded as generic. The element of deception or
           misrepresentation appears to be absent when alleged
           contrary entries were recorded before independence.

           8. Its a common knowledge that by the presidential orders
           of 1950 or 1960, the particular caste is recognized as

2 (2012) 1 SCC 113
                                    6                  WP / 10718 / 2026


           scheduled tribe or scheduled caste. Till that period, the
           forefathers of the petitioner had no reason to deliberately
           claim themselves to be "Tokre Koli'. The pre-independence
           entries might not have been subjected to interpolation or
           manipulation. We have noticed that there are consistent
           record of Tokre Koli after 1938. Under these circumstances,
           the petitioner cannot be nonsuited for alleged contrary
           entries. The Scrutiny Committee committed perversity in
           rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner because of the
           contrary entries.” (emphasis supplied).


12.            We have not been shown any contrary decision on the

above issue.

13.            We have also perused the original records of the Scrutiny

Committee produced by the learned AGP for the State and no adverse

documents have been shown which would justify the impugned order.

14.            The reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee that in the case of

father of the petitioner in the document of 01.03.1987, the caste is

shown as ‘Hindu Koli’, cannot be accepted in view of the above decision

of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand (supra). In sofar as the

document of 15.09.1939 which pertains to cousin sister of the

grandfather is concerned, reliance placed by respondent no. 2 –

Commitee, is also misconceived in the light of the above decision of the

Supreme Court.


15.            It is important to note that respondent no. 2 – Committee

has relied on document of 1939 and 1987, to decide the claim against
                                    7                   WP / 10718 / 2026


the petitioner but has not given any finding with respect to pre-

constitutional document of 1918 and 1935. This would be contrary to

the above referred decisions which have taken a view that pre-

constitutional document has higher probative value.            The petitioner

had brought to the notice of the Committee the decision in the case of

Anand (supra) and other various decisions but, same has not been dealt

with by respondent no. 2 – Committee in its impugned order.


16.           For all the above reasons, we are of the view that the

impugned order dated 28.07.2026 is required to be quashed and set

aside. Respondent no. 2 – Committee is directed to forthwith issue

validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Tokre Koli’

Scheduled Tribe.


17.           Hence, we pass the following order :-

                                 ORDER

      i.   The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) and

           (B) of the writ petition, which reads as under :-

           (A) Issue Writ of Certiorari or order in the like nature thereby

                quash and set aside impugned Judgment & Order passed

                by Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny

                Committee, Dhule, Dt. 28.07.2026.

           (B) Hold and declare that the petitioner belongs to ‘Tokre
                                 8                  WP / 10718 / 2026


             Koli’, Scheduled Tribe and further direct the Respondent

             No.2 – Scrutiny Committee to forthwith issue certificate

             of validity in favour of petitioner in prescribed form

             within stipulated period.


18.         Rule is made absolute in the above terms.




       [ JITENDRA JAIN ]                  [ KISHORE C. SANT ]
            JUDGE                               JUDGE

arp/