SHRI. SAGAR S/O RAVINDRA SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT , THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MANTRALAY

          Digitally signed
          by ARUNA
          SANDEEP
ARUNA     TALWALKAR
SANDEEP   Date:
TALWALKAR 2026.09.18
          14:53:33
          +0530

                                                               16.WP11734.2014.odt



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO.11734 OF 2014

Shri. Sagar S/o. Ravindra Suryawanshi                   … Petitioner.
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                       … Respondents

                            --------------
Mr. Sahil Choudhari h/f. Mr. Sushant Yeramvar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mrs. V.R. Raje, AGP for Respondent/State.
Mr. Gaurav Paithankar, Law Consultant, S.T.C.C. Committee,
Dhule.
                            --------------
                             CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
                                           SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

                                          DATE :   17th SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :


1.              Heard Mr. Choudhari, learned Counsel for the Petitioner

and Mrs. Raje, learned AGP for the State.

2.              The Petitioner obtained Caste certificate dated 17/5/2003

as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe from the Sub Divisional

Officer, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. Tribe claim of the Petitioner was

referred to the Committee alongwith the documentary evidence on

19/7/2010. The Petitioner relied upon the Certificate of validity

issued by the Committee in favour of his cousin brother viz. Dhiraj



Talwalkar                                1
                                                        16.WP11734.2014.odt



Gorakh Suryawanshi in support of his tribe claim. The Committee

invalidated the tribe claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the

original residence of the Petitioner is not from the Scheduled Area

for ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ and the Petitioner failed to prove the

affinity test.

3.          The Petitioner relied upon the genealogy which is at page

36 of the paper book which is duly verified by the Scrutiny

Committee. The Petitioner also relied upon the validity certificate

of Dhiraj Gorakh Suryawanshi, his cousin, as belonging to ‘Thakur

Scheduled Tribe’. Relying on the genealogy, the Petitioner

contended that Dhiraj is a close blood relative from the paternal

side. Dhiraj had in fact filed an affidavit dated 4/11/2009 before

the Committee stating on oath that the Petitioner and Dhiraj are

blood relatives being second cousins of each other.

4.          It is by now well settled that the area restrictions have

been lifted and moreover, the affinity test is not the sole test for

deciding the tribe claim and can only be used to corroborate the

documents on record. However, applying both these tests, the

Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the Petitioner. On

this ground alone, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny



Talwalkar                        2
                                                               16.WP11734.2014.odt



Committee calls for interference.

5.             So far as the validity certificate of Dhiraj is concerned, the

genealogy was duly verified by the Scrutiny Committee.                       The

Scrutiny Committee observed that the Petitioner has not been able

to establish his blood relationship with Dhiraj. We find that on

record, apart from the genealogy, is an affidavit filed by Dhiraj that

he is a cousin brother of the Petitioner. The affidavit of Dhiraj has

not been adverted to at all by the Committee. In such view of the

matter, we were inclined to allow the Petition in view of the law

laid down by this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional

Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 Nagpur 1. However, as the

affidavit of Dhiraj and verified genealogy has not been adverted to

in its correct perspective by the Scrutiny Committee, in view of the

persuasive submissions made by the learned AGP, we are inclined

to remand the matter to Scrutiny Committee for a fresh

consideration of the tribe claim, by setting aside the impugned

order.

6.             Hence, the following order is passed :

(i)            The impugned order dated 22/4/2014 of the Respondent


1           2010(6) Mh.L.J.401


Talwalkar                            3
                                                          16.WP11734.2014.odt



No. 2 Scrutiny Committee is set aside.

(ii)        The tribe claim of the Petitioner be considered afresh by

the Respondent No. 2 on its own merits and in accordance with

law.

(iii)       It is open for the Petitioner to rely upon additional

document in support of his case.

(iv)        Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No. 2 on 5th

October, 2026 at 11 a.m.

(v)         The Committee shall decide tribe claim within a period of

4 months from the date of the Petitioners’s appearance.

(vi)        Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.



(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                            (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Talwalkar                         4