TUSHAR RAJU RAUT AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:39505-DB


                                                1             wp 11876-2024.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 11876 OF 2024

                 1.     Tushar s/o Raju Raut,
                        Age : 21 years, Occu. : Education,
                        R/o. : Akalpur, Tal. Sangamner,
                        Dist. Ahmednagar.

                 2.     Nikhil s/o Raju Raut,
                        Age : 18 years, Occu. : Education,
                        R/o. : Akalpur, Tal. Sangamner,
                        Dist. Ahmednagar.                                .. Petitioners

                             Versus

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra,
                        Through its Principal Secretary,
                        of Tribal Department,
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

                 2.     The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny,
                        Committee, Nashik-2, Division Nashik,
                        Through its Deputy Director                      .. Respondents

                 Mr. K. N. Shermale, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                 Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                 Date on which reserved for order : 17th July 2026.

                 Date on which order pronounced : 31st August, 2026.

                 FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :-

                 1.     The petitioners, real brothers, being aggrieved by common
                              2              wp 11876-2024.odt


judgment and order dated 23.09.2024 passed by the caste scrutiny

committee     i.e.   respondent      No.    2      in      case   Nos.

15/522/Edu./22024/67301 and 15/522/Edu./22024/67145 have

approached this Court. By way of impugned judgment and order

the respondent No. 2 committee has invalidated the tribe claim of

the petitioners to be belonging to a Scheduled Tribe namely Koli

Mahadev.


2.    Petitioners’ proposals were sent to respondent No. 2

committee for verification of their certificates issued by the

learned S.D.O. Sangamner. The committee has mainly rejected the

claim holding that the petitioners failed to prove their caste status

as Koli Mahadev. There are contra entries wherein the relatives of

the petitioners are shown to be belonging to Koli. In birth and

death record maintained by the village panchayat their relatives

are shown as belonging to Koli. So far as school record is

concerned, it is observed that in the school record of grandfather

of the petitioners the caste shown is Koli. Word e (M) is added

subsequently. Other entries in respect of father and other relatives

are after constitution era and therefore are not relied upon.
                                 3               wp 11876-2024.odt


3.   Learned     advocate      Mr.    Shermale     for    the    petitioners

vehemently     argued   that    the    petitioners       have    sufficiently

established their caste status as Koli Mahadev and certificates

were rightly issued to them by the learned S.D.O., Sangamner. The

school record of the petitioners shows that, when they were

admitted to the school, in caste column they are shown as

Mahadev Koli. The committee wrongly observed that word

Mahadev in the caste column in school record of their grandfather

is subsequently added in a different ink which is against the

record. He submits that in the genealogy they had shown that

there is validity granted in blood relation of the petitioners in

respect of Mangesh Kushaba Raut and Ishwar Kushaba Raut who

happens to be great grand sons of one Bala. Bala happened to be

real brother of Umaji. Umaji was great great grandfather of the

petitioners. He submits that the validity granted in favour of

Mangesh and Ishwar are intact till today. The committee has

ignored this factual aspect and failed to deliver correct judgment.

The documents produced before the committee were not rightly

appreciated. The committee wrongly relied on the entries shown

as Koli in the revenue record. In the revenue record there is no

question of writing a caste. On one hand they relied upon the
                                          4     wp 11876-2024.odt


entries in the revenue record whereas, on the other hand they

ignored the entries in the school record where caste is required to

be mentioned. So far as allegation of overwriting is concerned, he

relies upon the judgment in the case of Sayanna Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others1. He submits that the facts in the case of

Sayanna (supra) are similar to the case in hand. He further relied

upon the judgment in the cases of Anand s/o Bharat Gajalwad

And Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Another 2 and

Santosh Anil Kolhe Vs. The State of Maharashtra And Another 3

with other connected matters.


4.       Learned A.G.P. on the other hand submits that the

committee has rightly appreciated the record and the documents.

Original record was also called by the committee. He relied upon

the original register from the school i.e. Primary School, Zilla

Parishad, Aklapur, Taluka Sangamner showing the entries in the

school record. The observations of the committee about different

handwriting and different ink are thus based upon the observation

by the committee from the original record. He relies upon the

judgment in the case of Shubham Sharad Mahandule Vs. The


1    (2009) 10 SCC 268.
2    W. P. No. 12499/2024 (Aurangabad Bench).
3    W. P. No. 8316/2025 (Aurangabad Bench).
                                           5      wp 11876-2024.odt


State of Maharashtra And Others4 with another connected matter.

He thus submits that no case is made out to allow the petition and

prays for rejection.


5.        Looking to the controversy it was found necessary to call for

original record from the school where grandfather took education.

This Court therefore had called for the original record for

verification. Even the originals of school register that general

register no. 1 from Primary School, Zilla Parishad, Aklapur, Taluka

Sangamner is now made available to this Court for verification.

On going through the submissions and going through the

impugned judgment this Court needs to see whether reasons

assigned by the committee are correct.


6.        The reasons seen for invalidation are as below :


(i)       The affinity test shows that the petitioners’ relatives failed to

show that they followed the rituals and customs of Mahadev Koli

tribe in both the cases.


(ii)      Birth and death register shows the caste of the descendants

of the petitioners as Koli which is contrary to the claim. There is

no proper explanation given by the petitioners.

4     W. P. No. 4704/2023 (Aurangabad Bench).
                              6             wp 11876-2024.odt


(iii) There is no pre independence document to support the

claim of the petitioners as belonging to Koli Mahadev.


(iv) The entries in the school register in respect of grandfather

Dattu and grand uncle Kushaba show that words ‘e’ & ‘Mahadev’

are inserted with different ink and in different handwriting.


7.    Father’s entry is taken on 18.06.1981. Entry in respect of

one Nanda Rangnath Raut shows caste only Hindu Koli and entry

is taken on 21.06.1985. Caste of Chanda Rangnath Raut is shown

as Hindu Mahadev Koli in entry dated 02.07.1986. Caste of

Vachhala Kushaba Raut though is shown to be Hindu Mahadev

Koli, the entry is taken on 02.07.1986. However, no exact relation

is shown with above persons. All these are the entries taken after

1981. There is no proper explanation given by the petitioners.


8.    This Court has seen that the only entry of pre independence

era is of 01.02.1946 i.e. school record of Primary School, Zilla

Parishad, Aklapur in respect of Dattu Mahadu Raut, grandfather of

the petitioners where it is found that word e is added between

words Hindu and Koli. The committee also considered the

certificate issued by the Headmaster showing that the word e is
                              7              wp 11876-2024.odt


added subsequently in different handwriting and in different ink.

The same is the observation about Kushaba Rambhau Raut, grand

uncle. There also the Headmaster has certified that the ink and

handwriting is different of word ‘Mahadev’ showing that word

‘Mahadev’ is subsequently added. This Court has verified these

entries from the original record which supports the observations

of the committee.



9.    So far as validity granted to Ishwar Kushaba Raut and

Mangesh Kushaba Raut, the committee has observed that the

validity holders have not shown genealogy in their inquiry. In

those cases no pre independence entries were shown to the

committee. Therefore, the committee could not make any

observation in respect of the said entries. The contrary entries are

found in respect of near relatives of the petitioners. This Court

thus finds that, even the said observation is not against the record.

The benefit cannot be taken of the entries of the validity holders

i.e. Ishwar and Mangesh Kushaba Raut. The committee also

considered the case of Rajaram Bhanudas Raut, another validity

holder. In the said case also it is observed that the said Rajaram

also did not file detailed genealogy in his inquiry. No proper
                              8             wp 11876-2024.odt


inquiry could be held by the vigilance cell in that case. It was

observed that the said Rajaram had also obtained validity by

misleading the committee.


10.   So far as case of Sonyabapu Pandurang Raut is concerned,

no proper genealogy was submitted by him. About one

Pandharinath Karbhari Raut similar observations are made. Thus,

considering all above, the committee did not accept the case of the

petitioners. It is also specifically observed that there is no

sufficient explanation given by the petitioners about the contra

entries.


11.   So far as original school record is concerned, this Court

personally verified the entry no. 112 in respect of Dattu Mahadu

Raut i.e. grandfather of the petitioners. Word e is clearly inserted

in the space between words Hindu and Koli. The words Hindu and

Koli are the entries in fountain pen ink whereas, word e is clearly

seen in different handwriting and in different ink and pen. Date of

birth is shown as 1946. So far as entry in the name of Kushaba

Rambhau Raut, grand uncle, it is clearly seen that words Hindu

Koli are in different handwriting and in different ink which

appears to be dark in colour whereas word Mahadev is added
                             9             wp 11876-2024.odt


above the words Hindu and Koli by showing arrow towards word

Mahadev, it is clearly appearing in faint ink. Handwriting is seen

broad. Word Krushna is rounded and above that name Kushaba is

written again in different ink and in different handwriting. The

school record thus clearly shows that there is interpolation and

insertion. This clearly shows that someone has played the mischief

only to favour the petitioners. In any case, when such are the

entries those cannot be taken to be genuine.


12.   The petitioners for this purpose relied upon the judgment in

the case of Sayanna (supra). In the case of Sayanna the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that when it is not shown by the committee that

the insertion is at the hands of the petitioner or the claimant it

cannot be said that he is the author of the entry and such entry

cannot be used against the petitioner. Whether it is necessary to

go into the aspect and whether it is petitioner himself who has

done the interpolation, however, at the same time it cannot be

forgotten that the petitioner cannot take benefit of any mischief

even done by any other person. Section 8 of the Maharashtra

Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta

Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special
                                   10               wp 11876-2024.odt


Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance And Verification of)

Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short “the said Act”) requires for

the claimant to prove his case specifically and for that purpose it is

his duty to show that the record is genuine. The reverse burden

cannot   be    put   upon     the       committee   to    show      that   the

interpolation/insertion is done by the claimant himself. Section 8

of the said Act reads as under :

         “8.   Burden of proof :
               Where an application is made to the Competent
         Authority under section 3 for the issue of a Caste
         Certificate in respect of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
         Tribes, De-notified tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
         Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward
         Category and in any enquiry conducted by the
         Competent Authority and Scrutiny Committee or the
         Appellate Authority under this Act or any trial of
         offence under this Act, the burden of proving that the
         person belonged to such Caste, Tribe or Class shall be
         on such claimant applicant.”


13.   In view of section 8 of the said Act it is clear that the burden

is clearly on the person who claims caste status or tribe status to

prove the same. When the burden is on the person, he has to

strictly prove the caste status. When any interpolation is made,

there is every reason to believe that it is made only for the benefit

of a person who claims benefit of such an act. It is for this reason,

in the present case, this Court finds that the main question is not
                               11             wp 11876-2024.odt


as to whether the interpolation is done at the hands of the

petitioners. What is material is that there is interpolation. There is

nothing on record to show that this correction is done by

following any procedure provided for correction of the entries in

the school record. There is also no material to show that it is done

with the knowledge of the person in whose custody the record is

kept.


14.     It is only if a person is to be criminally prosecuted for

committing the act of interpolation, overwriting etc. it will have to

be proved that the claimant has committed interpolation etc. The

committee and the Court only has to consider as to whether

benefit can be given of such a wrong to a person who claims caste

status on the basis of such an entry. The answer has to be no.

Otherwise this will create chaos and will encourage the persons to

take disadvantage of such practice and then to take a defence that

it is not done by the claimant himself.


15.     It is for this reason the committee is not expected to prove

that the interpolation or overwriting is done by the petitioners or

someone else on behalf of the petitioners. No such burden can be

shifted upon the committee. In the present case, as observed
                               12              wp 11876-2024.odt


above, the petitioners failed to show that the entries which appear

to be interpolated is done by following procedure of law. There is

no sufficient explanation about the contra entries. It is trite law

that, no entries after the presidential order can be considered. The

affinity test is also against the petitioners in this case though the

affinity test itself is not a criteria to decide the validity. However,

there must be some other thing to be established by the claimant

and then the affinity test can be considered as corroborating

material.


16.   Coming to the judgment in the case of Anand s/o Bharat

Gajalwad And Others (supra), this Court had granted validity

conditionally subject to outcome of reverification that was sought

to be undertaken by the committee in respect of the validity

holders on whose the petitioner in the said petition had relied

upon. This judgment would not help the petitioners.


17.   So far as judgment in the case of Santosh Anil Kolhe (supra)

is concerned, a challenge to the committee’s judgment was on the

ground that the committee in that case cancelled the validation

already granted by recalling its own earlier order. It was on the

ground that while obtaining the validity certificate there was
                               13            wp 11876-2024.odt


suppression and misrepresentations made by the claimants. This

Court considered the judgments in the cases of (i) Bharat Nagu

Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra And Others5, (ii) Anil Shivram

Bandawar Vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee

And Another6 and (iii) Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of

Maharashtra And Others7. In these three writ petitions this Court

at Principal Seat has taken a view that the committee does not

have the powers to review its own order and to re-open the cases.

This Court finds that, even these judgments are of no help on the

facts of the case.


18.     So far as judgment relied upon by the learned A.G.P. in the

case of Shubham Sharad Mahandule Vs. The State of Maharashtra

And Others (supra) is concerned, this Court in the said case has

relied upon the judgment in the case of Apoorva D/o Vijay Nichale

Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee And Others 8.

The Court also relied upon the judgment in the case of

Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State

of Maharashtra And Others9. It is relied upon for the purpose to

show that there was interpolation in the caste column in the
5   2024 (7) ALL MR 45.
6   2021 (5) Mh.L.J. 345.
7   2023 63 OnLine Bom 1013.
8   2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.
9   2023 SCC Online SC 326.
                              14             wp 11876-2024.odt


school register in respect of the petitioner namely Ananda. There

the word Mahadev was added as a prefix to original entry Koli.

The same was in different handwriting and in different ink. It is in

that view the Court refused to grant any benefit to the petitioner.

The Court in that case considered the judgment in the case of

Sayanna (supra) and has taken this view as the facts were not

identical.


19.   In the present case also this Court finds that the facts are

identical to the case of Shubham Sharad Mahandule (supra) with

respect to this. This Court also observed that the judgment in the

case of Sayanna (supra) would not be applicable in the facts of

present case as observed in earlier foregoing paragraphs.


20.   This Court thus finds that the petitioners failed to make out

a case calling for interference at the hands of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the impugned

judgment of the caste scrutiny committee. Consequently, this

Court finds that there is no merit in the writ petition. Hence,

following order :

                              ORDER

(I)   The writ petition stands dismissed.
                                 15            wp 11876-2024.odt


(II)     The original record be given back to the learned A.G.P. for

sending it to the proper authority.



( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.)                   ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )


21.      At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioners prays for

continuation of the interim arrangement.


22.      Since the interim arrangement is in force since 2024, the

same be continued for a period of eight (08) weeks from today.



( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.)                   ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )



P.S.B.