Bombay High Court

MANTHAN S/O VIKAS ADHATRAOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV NANDESH SHANKARRAO DESHPANDE

Holding

The Court held that the Committee erred and the petitioner indeed belongs to the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe.

Summary

The petitioner, Manthan, challenged the order of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee that rejected his claim to belong to the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe and consequently cancelled his admission to a reserved seat in an engineering college. He submitted over 54 documents, including pre‑independence public records, school certificates, service records, and a prior adjudicatory order favoring a paternal relative, establishing a consistent paternal lineage. The Committee, relying on a vigilance report and alleged doubts about certain entries, dismissed the claim on speculative grounds and an over‑emphasis on the affinity test. The Court examined the precedents that give highest probative value to genuine pre‑constitution documents and held that the Committee failed to accord due weight to the most compelling evidence, improperly discounted generic entries, and relied on conjecture. Consequently, the Court quashed the Committee’s order, declared the petitioner a member of the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe, and directed issuance of a caste validity certificate.

Issues considered

Whether the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim to belong to the “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe despite the documentary evidence presented.
Whether the order invalidating the tribe claim and cancelling the petitioner’s admission was legally sustainable.
Whether the Committee erred in applying the affinity test and discounting pre‑independence records.

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe
Caste verification
Tribal certificate
Admission cancellation
Documentary evidence
Affinity test
Judicial review
Writ petition

Judgment

12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12787 OF 2025

Manthan S/o Vikas Adhatrao
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors

Mrs. Vaishali Suryawanshi-Birajdar (through VC) a/w Mrs. Surekha
H. Kamble, advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the State

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, &
NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 22nd JULY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th JULY, 2026

JUDGMENT: [PER: NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.]

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 29.09.2025 passed

by Respondent No.3 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Pune Division, Pune, invalidating his claim to belong to

“Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe, together with the consequential

action cancelling his admission to Respondent No.5 – S.K.N.

Sinhgad College of Engineering, Korti, Taluka Pandharpur, District

Solapur.

1 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

3. The petitioner asserts that he belongs to “Koli Mahadev”

Scheduled Tribe and had secured admission against a Scheduled

Tribe seat on the basis of his CET score, subject to production of a

caste validity certificate. His proposal was forwarded for

verification, but upon vigilance enquiry the Scrutiny Committee

rejected his tribe claim, as a result of which his admission came to

be cancelled.

4. According to the petitioner, he had produced more than 54

documents in support of his claim, including old public records,

school and birth extracts, service record material, and an

adjudicatory order in favour of a close paternal relative. His

grievance is that the Committee failed to attach due weight to the

most probative material on record and instead rejected the claim on

conjectural and legally untenable grounds.

5. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon the family

genealogy in support of the relationship between himself and the

persons whose documents have been produced. The family tree

relied upon by the petitioner is reproduced below:

2 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

6. We have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the records placed before us, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the documentary material on record

discloses a clear and consistent pattern in the direct paternal line. It

is urged that the Committee disregarded pre-independence and

other official records, as well as a prior adjudicatory order affirming

Scheduled Tribe status in favour of a paternal relative, and instead

proceeded on speculative doubts regarding certain entries and on

undue reliance upon affinity.

7. Learned AGP supports the impugned order and submits that

3 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

the Committee considered the vigilance report, genealogical

material, school and other records, and was justified in concluding

that the petitioner had failed to establish his tribe claim. It is

contended that some entries were doubtful, some were generic in

nature, and the petitioner did not satisfactorily establish affinity

with the claimed tribe.

8. It is clarified at the outset that, in the present petition, we

are concerned only with the legality of the order invalidating the

petitioner's tribe claim and the consequential action taken pursuant

thereto. We are not adjudicating upon the validity or applicability of

the Government Resolution referred to in the prayers, nor are we

separately considering the prayer seeking a direction to Respondents

to confirm the petitioner's admission.

9. Now the question that arises is whether the Scrutiny

Committee was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s claim to belong

to “Koli Mahadev” Scheduled Tribe despite the documentary

material produced in support thereof. Few of the documents central

to the petitioner’s case, and their relationship to him, may be

conveniently set out thus:

4 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

Relationship Caste entry /
Sr. No. Document description Date / period
to petitioner finding
Appellate order of the then
Additional Commissioner, Mahadev Koli
Paternal
1 Tribal Development, Nashik, in 10.07.1991 (Scheduled
uncle
allowing the appeal of Shri Tribe)
Mukesh Madhukar Adhatrao
Paternal
Birth register extract of Vasant ancestor in
2 23.09.1936 Mahadev Koli
Baburao Appa Adhatrao the family
line
Date of birth
School leaving certificate of Close
19.07.1943; Hindu Mahadev
3 Maharashtra Tularam/Tukaram paternal
certificate Koli
Baburao Adhatrao relative
issued in 2005
Date of birth
Secondary school leaving Close
11.06.1942;
4 certificatee of Madhukar paternal Mahadev Koli
school leaving
Ramchandra Adhatrao relative
in 1958
Service record certificate
issued by the Divisional Safety Hindu Mahadev
Employment Paternal
5 Officer, Central Railway, Koli (Scheduled
period relative
Solapur, in respect of Shri M.R. Tribe)
Mahatrao

10. Read as a whole, the above material forms a consistent and

credible documentary chain in the petitioner’s direct paternal line.

In Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of

Maharashtra others1 and Anand v. Committee for Scrutiny and

Verification of Tribe Claims & Ors 2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held that genuine pre-constitution documents carry the highest

probative value in caste and tribe verification proceedings and must

1 (2023) 2 Mh.L.J.785
2 2012 (1) SCC 113

5 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

receive greater weight and that the affinity test is merely

corroborative and not a litmus test. The Committee was, therefore,

under a duty to accord due primacy to this class of evidence and

could not lightly brush it aside.

11. In Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra3, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held that interpolation or fabrication in public records cannot

be inferred on mere conjecture or visual impression as to ink,

handwriting, or the age and condition of the register. In the present

case, the doubts entertained by the Committee regarding old

records are unsupported by expert material and rest on no legally

acceptable foundation. Such suspicion, by itself, was wholly

insufficient to dislodge certified copies of public documents.

12. The Committee also appears to have attached undue

significance to generic entries such as “Koli”. However, in Prabhu

Narayan Survase v. State of Maharashtra 4, in para 6 of the said

judgment held that a general caste description such as “Koli” does

not, by itself, exclude the possibility of the claimant belonging to

“Mahadev Koli” Scheduled Tribe, and such entries must be assessed

in the context of the entire documentary record. When the record as
3 2010 (1) ALL MR 957 (SC)
4 Writ Petition no. 1907 of 2003

6 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

a whole contains specific and repeated references to “Mahadev Koli”

in the direct paternal line, a stray generic entry could not have been

treated as destructive of the petitioner’s claim.

13. Viewed in the light of these settled principles, the impugned

order discloses a fundamentally flawed approach. The Committee

failed to accord due weight to the most probative material on

record, magnified immaterial or conjectural discrepancies, and

permitted the affinity test and generic entries to overshadow a

consistent documentary chain extending across decades. The

scrutiny expected of such a body is one of fairness, legal discipline

and careful evaluation; what is reflected in the present case,

however, is a mechanical and hyper-technical exercise which has

resulted in the rejection of a genuine claim on wholly untenable

grounds. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained.

14. We therefore, pass the following

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 29.09.2025 passed by
Respondent No.3–Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Pune Division, Pune, invalidating the

7 of 8
12787-2025-wp-JUR.doc

petitioner’s claim to belong to “Koli Mahadev”
Scheduled Tribe, is quashed and set aside. It is declared
that the petitioner belongs to “Koli Mahadev”
Scheduled Tribe.

(iii) Respondent No.3 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division, Pune, shall issue a
caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There
shall be no order as to costs.

[NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.] [MILIND N. JADHAV, J.]
Iresh

IRESH
Digitally signed by
IRESH MASHAL

MASHAL Date: 2026.07.27
12:14:49 +0530

8 of 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…