RENUKA TUKARAM KOLI (SHETSANDI) @ SAKSHI LAXMAN KOLIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

                                                     902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    WRIT PETITION NO. 13054 OF 2024

Renuka Tukaram Koli (Shetsandi) @
Sakshi Laxman Koli,
Age: 33 years, Occ: Education/Service,
Residing at Near Z.P. School, Dharsang,
Post Mundewadi, Taluka Akkalkot,
District: Solapur.                            ...Petitioner.
         Versus
1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through its Secretary Tribal
       Development Department,
       Mantralaya Mumbai-400 032.

2.      The Sub Divisional Oicer,
        Solapur No.2, Taluka Solapur,
        District: Solapur.

3.      The Scheduled Tribe Certiicate,
        Scrutiny Committee, Pune
        Through its Member Secretary.

4.      Joint Director of Higher Education,
        Pune Region, Pune.

5.      The Commissioner,
        State Cell Maharashtra, 8th Floor,
        New Excelsior Building, CET Cell,
        A. K. Naik Road, Fort.
        Mumbai – 400 001.

6.      D.G.B. Dayanand Law College,
        Solapur, through Principal,
        Solapur, Dist-Solapur.

7.      The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
        Solapur No.2-, Solapur,
        District : Solapur.                   ....Respondents.


Gaikwad RD                         1 of 11
                                                    902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


                               ——————
Mr. Satish Raut, i/b. Mr. Vivek Salunkhe, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader with Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel,
AGP, for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Nagesh Y. Chavan, for the Respondent No.5-CET Cell.
                               ——————
                                  Coram :    Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                          Reserved on :      September 30, 2026.
                        Pronounced on :      October 6, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1.      Heard inally by consent of both the sides at the admission stage.

2.      Impugned in this writ petition is the order dated 20 th September

2024 passed by the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee invalidating

the claim of the Petitioner towards the Koli Mahadev-Scheduled Tribe.

The Petitioner is the student seeking admission to the three-year LLB

Course in the Respondent No.6-College through the Central Admission

Process implemented through the Respondent No.5-CET Cell.                 The

petitioner is having the tribe certiicate as belonging to the Koli

Mahadev-Scheduled Tribe. The Petitioner submitted her tribe certiicate

for veriication to the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee alongwith

the documents of her blood relatives from the paternal side in support

of her claim. The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee referred the

Petitioner's claim to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell conducted the

enquiry and submitted its report. The Petitioner was served with the

copy of the Vigilance Cell report and the notice by the Respondent


Gaikwad RD                        2 of 11
                                                 902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


No.3-Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner submitted her response to the

same. After hearing the Petitioner and on consideration of the

documents on record, the impugned order came to be passed.

3.      It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

Petitioner submitted the genealogy and the documents in support of

her tribe claim. The documents submitted by the Petitioner includes the

entries of a pre-Constitution period showing the caste of her father's

aunt as Koli Mahadev.      The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee

discarded the pre-Constitution period entry of Laxmibai, who was the

aunt of her father, on the ground that the school, where Laxmibai had

studied was established in 1911 and the entries in the school register

were available from 29th August 1947 and the said entries were

rewritten from the previous register. The Committee further invalidated

the tribe claim on the ground that in the revenue record and school

record of the blood relatives of the Petitioner between the period 1921

and 1948 shows the caste as ‘Koli’. He submitted that without there

being any expert's opinion, the observation of the Respondent No.3-

Scrutiny Committee discarding the pre-Constitution period entry of

Parvatibai, who was also the aunt of her father, on the ground that

there was interpolation and the impugned order is unsustainable in the

eyes of law. He relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Kum.




Gaikwad RD                      3 of 11
                                                                               902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


Ganesh s/o. Santosh Koli v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1 and in the

case of Harshad Mukund Parchande v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.2

4.        The learned AGP supported the impugned order. He submitted

that the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee accepted report

submitted by the Vigilance Cell and the impugned order calls for no

interference.

5.        The following is the undisputed genealogy submitted by the

petitioner before the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee :

                                                      oa’kkoG
                                               Jh jkek fxjsIik ‘ksrlanh
                                                   [kkij i.ktksck


                   Jh rqdkjke jkek ‘ksrlanh                                             Jh ;yIik
                            i.ktksck                                                 pqyr i.ktksck


¼Jh jkepanz rqdkjke ‘ksrlanh½ ¼Jhe ikcZrh rqdkjke ‘ksrlanh½ ¼panzHkkxk rqdkjke ‘ksrlanh½ ¼y{ehckbZ rqdkjke ‘ksrlanh½
         vktksck                       vkth                           vkth                         vkth


         Jh rqdkjke jkepanz ‘ksrlanh                                 Jh lq;Zdkar jkepanz ‘ksrlanh
                  oMhy                                                        pqyrk


         xaxk/kj rqdkjke ‘ksrlanh                                    js.kqdk rqdkjke ‘ksrlanh
                   HkkÅ                                                Lor% mesnokj vtZnkj
6.        The Petitioner has based her tribe claim on the pre-Constitution

era documents of Laxmibai, Chandrabhaga and Parbati, who are the

aunts of her father. The said documents are referred in the chart in

paragraph 3 of the impugned order. The document in respect of

Laxmibai relied upon by the Petitioner is the school record of Zilla


1    Writ Petition No.3991 of 2026 Dtd. 20th August 2026.
2    Writ Petition No.4340 of 2026 Dtd. 4th September 2026.


Gaikwad RD                                          4 of 11
                                                  902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


Parishad Primary School, Sindhkhed, Taluka South Solapur, District

Solapur. The date of entry in the said school is shown as 1 st March 1949

and the caste is recorded as ‘Hindu Mahadev Koli’. The Respondent

No.3-Scrutiny Committee discarded the said entry on the ground that,

the said school was established in the year 1911 and the entries in the

school record were available from 29th August 1947 and the entries

were rewritten in the register from the previous register and the

previous register was not available.       The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny

Committee records that, the caste of Laxmibai in the said school record

is shown as ‘Hindu Mahadev Koli’. It is not the inding by the Respondent

No.3-Scrutiny Committee that, the said school entry of Laxmibai was

tampered or interpolated. The reason given by the Respondent No.3-

Scrutiny Committee for discarding the said document is neither

suicient nor proper.

7.      As regards Chandrabhaga is concerned, the document relied upon

by the Petitioner is the school entry in the Zilla Parishad Primary School,

Rajur, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur. The date of entry in the

school is shown as 11th September 1945 and the caste is recorded as

‘Hindu Mahadev Koli’. The impugned order does not show that, the

Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee dealt with the said entry of

Chandrabhaga. These entries of Chandrabhaga and that of Laxmibai are

of the pre-Constitution era, having more probative value.


Gaikwad RD                       5 of 11
                                                  902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


8.      As regards the entry in the school record of Parvatabai is

concerned, the same is from the Zilla Parishad Primary Marathi School,

Rajur, Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur, which shows the date of

entry in the school as 5th July 1939 and the caste is shown as ‘Mahadev

Koli’. The Repondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee discarded the said entry

with the reason that, as per the Vigilance Cell report, the caste

‘Mahadev Koli’ is mentioned in the column for the caste and the page

containing the Column No.1 to 6 on the said Register was completely

diferent and was subsequently introduced and was written in the

diferent handwriting and diferent ink. However, it is nowhere the

inding of the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee that it was the sole

entry of Parbatibai on the said page of the school register. If that is not

the inding of the Scrutiny Committee, the reason given for discarding

the said pre-Constitution era entry will not sustain.

9.      The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order

further noted that, in the veriication case of Ratnadeepa Shetsandi,

who was the cousin sister of Parbatabai, the Vigilance Cell came across

the caste entry of Parbatabai as ‘Koli’. The impugned order further

shows that, the Vigilance Cell came across the caste entries as Koli in

the pre-Constitution era documents of the ancestors of the Petitioners,

such as cousin sister of cousin grandfather, sister of grandfather, sister

of cousin grandfather, cousin grandfather, etc.


Gaikwad RD                       6 of 11
                                                          902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


10.      In Kum Ganesh Santosh Koli (supra), the challenge was to the

order of the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the

claim of the Petitioner therein towards ‘Koli Mahadev-Scheduled Tribe’.

The Vigilance Cell inquiry conducted in the said case found the caste

entry as ‘Koli’ in the record of the Petitioner's blood relatives. The

decision in Prabhu s/o. Narayan Survase v. State of Maharashtra &

Ors., 2004 (4) ALL MR 815, in respect of the ‘Koli Mahadev-Scheduled

Tribe’ was considered in the said decision. The relevant paragraphs

from the said Judgment of Prabhu s/o. Narayan Survase (supra),

quoted therein, are reproduced below:

      “8. Presidential notiication, notifying the Constitution (Scheduled
      Tribes) Order, 1950, in so far as the State of Bombay is concerned,
      included amongst the Scheduled Tribes Koli Dhor and Koli Mahadev. At
      the relevant time, the ive districts, now in Marathwada, were not a
      part of the Bombay State but were part of the State of Hyderabad.
      There was no inclusion of the tribe Koli Mahadeo among the Scheduled
      Tribes notiied for the State of Hyderabad. Thereafter even under the
      amendment to the Constitution (Scheduled) Tribes Order, 1950, the
      position remained as under :
      Mahadeo Koli was declared Scheduled Tribe in the Bombay Province as
      early as 1933. For the State of Bombay, under item 12 were included
      Koli Dhor, Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha. Then under item 3(a) in certain
      talukas in Ahmednagar, Kolaba, Nashik, Poona and Thana, Koli
      Mahadev or Dongar were also notiied as Scheduled Tribes.
      Then came the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders
      (Amendment) Act, 1976. Under this, in so far as the State of
      Maharashtra is concerned, under item No.28 were included Koli, Dhor,
      Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha and under item No.29, Koli Mahadeo,
      Dongar Koli, and at item no.30 were Koli Malhar, for the entire State.
      In the erstwhile State of Hyderabad there was an enactment, known as
      Tribal Areas Regulation, 1359 Fasli under which the 'Tribe' was deined
      to mean Bhils, Chenchus, Gonds, Hill Reddies, Kolams Koyas, Naikpods,
      Pardans, Totis. Thus, in erstwhile State, there was no reference to either



Gaikwad RD                             7 of 11
                                                          902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


    Mahadeo Kolis or Kolis as Scheduled Tribe except as an agricultural
    community wherein it was referred to as Kolis. The Backward Classes
    Commission had however suggested inclusion of Koli as Scheduled Tribe
    in the State of Hyderabad. This was never given efect to by any speciic
    Presidential order or Legislation.
    The ive districts, now eight, of Marathawada were earlier forming part
    of erstwhile State of Hyderabad. When then Backward Classes
    Commission submitted its report, one of its recommendations, for the
    State of Hyderabad, was to include Koli, as a Scheduled Tribe. In so far
    as State of Hyderabad is concerned, we have some material from the
    book "The Castes and Tribes of H.E.H. The Nizam's Dominions" by Syed
    Siraj Ul Hassan, published in the year 1920 (Bombay, The Tata Press).

    In respect of Kolis, internal structure is described as under :

    Mahadev Kolis derive their name from the god Mahadeo and they have
    24 exogamous septs (sects), each of which is further divided into a
    number of surnames or sub-sections. The Kolis observe the simple rule
    of exogamy that a man may not marry outside the sub-tribe or inside
    the sept (sect) to which he belongs. In so far as religion is concerned, it
    is set out that their patron deity is Mahadeo, their household worship,
    in which priests take no part, is addressed to Bhairoba (Sonari,
    Ahmednagar), Devi of Tuljapur (Nizam's territory) and Khandoba of
    Jejuri (Pune). The dead are buried in a lying posture, with the face
    upwards and the head pointing to the north.
    In the Encyclopedic Proile of Indian Tribes, by Sachchidananda and R. R.
    Prasad, in an article written by Navinchandra Jain and Robin D.
    Tribhuwan it is mentioned that the Mahadeo Kolis are one of the major
    tribes of western Maharashtra. It is predominantly found in ive districts
    namely Nashik, Pune, Ahmednagar, Thane and Raigad.
    The major deities of Mahadeo Kolis are goddess Bhavani, and gods
    Kaloba and Bhairoba, respectively. The Mahadeo Kolis bury their dead
    and head points towards the south. Irrespective of the changes which
    are taking place in their life style, the Mahadeo Kolis still hold
    superstitious beliefs about life, death, etc. The traditional village
    panchayat of the Mahadeo Kolis is known as "Gaon Baithak".

    In the Census of India, 1941, Vol.XXI HEH Nizam's Dominion, published
    in 1945, there is Appendix I which is an essay by Christoph Von Furer
    Haimendrof Ph.D. on "Tribal Populations of Hyderabad Yesterday and
    Today", which states that Kolis in Hyderabad State are known and
    recognised as Scheduled Tribe and the "Kolis" in erstwhile Hyderabad
    State on reorganisation of State, will continue as Scheduled Tribe. This
    factually seems not to be correct.
                                        ***


Gaikwad RD                            8 of 11
                                                        902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


    11. The conclusions that must follow from the discussion are as under :-

    (a) The Committee, considering the claim of a candidate, is the only fact
    inding Committee. Therefore, great care must be taken in absence of
    any appeal, to consider and appreciate all the evidence, documentary or
    by way of aidavit or oral which has been produced.

    (b) As a fact inding Committee and, a quasi judicial authority, deciding
    the status of the party and from which order no appeal lies, it must
    record reasons for rejecting the evidence produced, documentary or
    oral. The need for recording reasons is because a High Court examining
    the order in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article
    226 would be in a position to know whether correct tests have been
    applied and whether the evidence placed before the Committee has
    been considered.

    (c) Merely because an entry as, for instance, Koli, is recorded in the
    School records, by itself, cannot result in rejecting the claim of a
    candidate. This is more so in the ive districts, now eight districts, of
    Marathwada, which were earlier forming part of the erstwhile State of
    Hyderabad and who admittedly are not in the profession of ishing as
    traditional occupation nor is Marathwada a coastal belt. The
    Committee, while considering the claims of Scheduled Tribe candidates,
    coming from this area, will have to consider the other material placed
    before it and not merely proceed on the footing that, because Koli is
    shown in the school certiicates or, some other document, all other
    evidence must be rejected. The Committee must consider the
    documentary evidence, coupled with the Vigilance Report and other
    evidence of tribal traits and characteristics, to arrive at a conclusion
    that the petitioner belongs to the tribe, he/she claims to being. No
    doubt, the burden will be more on the candidate where such entry is
    recorded unlike in a case, no such documentary evidence is recorded. As
    has been held in the case of Rajesh s/o. Yadavrao Sankaple (supra), Kolis
    in Marathawada did not become Mahadeo Kolis by the Presidential
    Order of 1976. However, it would still be open to persons claiming to be
    belonging to Mahadeo Kolis to establish that they are not isherman
    and establish by evidence their tribe characteristics as Mahadeo Kolis.

    (d) In so far as documentary evidence is concerned, mere absence of the
    records of the parents of the candidate cannot be held against a
    claimant. The very fact that the tribe/caste is notiied, as S.C./S.T. is
    based on the historical fact that the tribe/cast is backward. In these
    circumstances, the mere absence of documentary evidence cannot be
    held against a claimant. In those cases the report of the Vigilance
    Oicer and of the Research Oicer, about the tribal traits and
    characteristics and anthropological studies, must decide the issue based
    on the evidence produced.


Gaikwad RD                           9 of 11
                                                           902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc




      (e) We have earlier observed that the orders are stereotyped. This needs
      correction at the hands of the Committee. In respect of the evidence
      pertaining to traits, characteristics, anthropological studies, there must
      be a speciic proforma in respect of each tribe and, may be, even caste.
      A claimant should be asked questions in respect of his tribe claim and
      not pertaining generally to all tribes. It is possible that some traits will
      be common but, at the same time, there will be other traits which may
      be distinct to distinguish one tribe from the another. The praforma for
      veriication of tribe claim, must include the speciic traits of each tribe.
      (f) In the absence of documentary evidence, the duty of the Committee
      will be to permit the candidate to lead evidence of tribal traits and
      characteristics, by answering the questionnaire prepared in respect of
      his tribe and also allow any evidence on aidavit to be led on which the
      candidate can be questioned. That material including in cases where
      there are documents should be made available to the Vigilance Oicer
      who will verify the same by following the procedure laid down in
      judgment of the Apex Court referred to earlier to ind out the
      authenticity or genuiness of the claim.

      (g) The report of the Vigilance Oicer along with any documents the
      Oicer may collect must be given to the candidate, to enable him to
      give his say if the report is adverse, or if the Committee is of the prima
      facie opinion, that the report has to be rejected. The reply if any should
      be considered whilst passing order in the claim of the candidate. ”

11.      The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee has categorically

recorded that the Petitioner and her ancestors were resident of Rajur,

Taluka South Solapur, District Solapur prior to 6 th September 1950.

There is no inding by the Vigilance Cell and by the Respondent No.3-

Scrutiny Committee that ‘ishing’ was the traditional occupation of the

Petitioner's family. Under such facts and circumstances, the ratio in the

said Judgment would be applicable in the case at hand. Therefore, the

caste entries as ‘Koli‘ in the records of the Petitioner's paternal blood

relatives will not by itself suicient to discard her claim towards ‘Koli

Mahadev’, as there are three (3) entries of pre-Constitution era of the


Gaikwad RD                             10 of 11
                                                                              902-WP-13054-2024 (C)-J.doc


                        paternal blood relatives of the Petitioner showing the caste as ‘Koli

                        Mahadev’.

                        12.        The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee appears to have

                        misdirected itself in discarding the pre-Constitution era entries of

                        Laxmibai and Chandrabhaga and gave unacceptable reasons in

                        discarding the said entries. The other ground of ainity is unsustainable

                        in view of the settled legal position that ainity test is not a litmus test

                        to decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the

                        determination of the correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

                        13.        In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order is

                        unsustainable and liable to be quashed and set aside with directions to

                        the Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certiicate to

                        the Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Koli Mahadev-Scheduled Tribe’.

                        Hence, the following order:

                                                             ORDER

                              i)      The impugned order dated 20th September 2024 passed by the
                                      Respondent     No.3-Scrutiny     Committee    invalidating     the
                                      Petitioner's tribe claim is quashed and set aside.
                              ii)     The Respondent No.3-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue
                                      validity certiicate to the Petitioner as belonging to the 'Koli
                                      Mahadev-Scheduled Tribe’, within a period of two (2) days.
                              iii)    The Writ Petition stands disposed of.



                         [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                          [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
                        Gaikwad RD                          11 of 11
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.10.06
           20:53:29
           +0530