Bombay High Court
PRATYUSH S/O RAVINDRA SAWANTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, DEPT. OF TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND ANR
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Scrutiny Committee’s order was upheld and the petitioner’s claim was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, a student, sought confirmation of his belonging to the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe after having previously obtained a tribe certificate. The Scrutiny Committee, after a re‑examination prompted by a Vigilance Cell inquiry, invalidated his claim on the basis that earlier school records showing his grandfather’s caste had been interpolated. The petitioner argued that pre‑Constitution era documents and older revenue records establishing a Koli caste were decisive, while the respondents contended that the Vigilance findings were reliable and the Committee correctly applied the evidentiary hierarchy. The High Court examined the genealogy, school extracts, and revenue entries, concluding that the Committee’s reliance on the Vigilance report was justified. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and ordered the record to be returned to the Scrutiny Committee.
Issues considered
- Whether the Scrutiny Committee’s order invalidating the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe claim, based on alleged interpolation in caste records, is legally sustainable
- Whether pre‑Constitution era documents showing Koli caste have greater probative value than later school records
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the tribe certificate under the applicable statutory provisions
Subjects
- Scheduled Tribe
- tribe certificate
- Scrutiny Committee
- Vigilance Cell
- caste verification
- Koli Mahadev
- genealogical evidence
- interpolation
Judgment
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 18335 OF 2024
Pratyush s/o Ravindra Sawant,
Age : 20 years, Occ. : Student,
R/o At & Post- Dhaval,
Taluka : Phaltan, District : Satara. ...Petitioner.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32.
Through its Secretary.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certiicate
Scrutiny Committee, Pune Division,
5th Floor, C-Wing, Kapil Towers,
Near RTO Oice, Pune.
Through its Member Secretary. ...Respondents.
——————
Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam with Mr. Rushikesh S. Desai, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents-State.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 27, 2026.
P. C. :
1. By consent of both the sides, heard inally at the admission stage.
2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 3 rd October
2024 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee invalidating
the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner towards 'Koli Mahadev' in File No.
Satara/246/2023.
Gaikwad RD 1 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
3. The Petitioner is the student. On the earlier occasion, he had iled
Writ Petition No.9272 of 2022 for directions to the Competent
Authority to issue the Tribe Certiicate to the Petitioner as belonging to
'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant to the order dated 4 th August
2022, the directions were issued to the Competent Authority and
accordingly, the Petitioner received the Tribe Certiicate as belonging to
'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe.
4. The Petitioner's claim towards 'Koli Mahadev' was referred to the
Respondent No.2-Committee on the earlier occasion. The Respondent
No.2-Scrutiny Committee by order dated 29 th August 2023 invalidated
the Petitioner's claim towards 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe. The
Petitioner had iled Writ Petition No.12475 of 2023, which came to be
allowed by order dated 8th January 2024 setting aside the order of
invalidation and the Petitioner's claim was remanded back to the
Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration and
decision.
5. The Respondent No.2-Committee referred the Petitioner's case to
the Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The Vigilance Cell submitted its report.
The copy of the Vigilance Cell Report was given to the Petitioner and
the Petitioner submitted his reply to the same. The Respondent No.2-
Committee, by the impugned order, invalidated the Petitioner's claim
towards the 'Koli Mahadev' Scheduled Tribe.
Gaikwad RD 2 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
6. It is submitted by learned Advocate for the Petitioner that,
though the documents from the pre-constitution era in respect of his
grandfather and cousin grandfather were submitted before the
Committee showing their caste as 'Koli Mahadev', the Respondent No.2-
Committee invalidated the claim on the basis of the documents
collected by the Vigilance Cell. On the earlier occasion, the Vigilance
Cell did not notice any tampering with the old school records of the
Petitioner's grandfather, however, after the matter was remanded back
to the Committee, the Vigilance Cell found tampering in the column of
‘Caste’ of the Petitioner's grandfather and cousin grandfather. The
impugned order passed by Respondent No.2-Committee, whereby the
pre-Constitution-era documents pertaining to the Petitioner's blood
relatives have been ignored, is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The
said order, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
7. It is submitted by learned AGP appearing for the Respondents
including the Respondent No.2-Committee that, the Petitioner relied on
the entries in the school record of his grandfather and cousin
grandfather, which were found to be interpolated in the Vigilance
enquiry. The earlier entries in respect of the Petitioner's grandfather,
cousin grandfather and blood relatives in the Tahsil records are that of
'Koli' caste. The said entries being the oldest one, have more probative
value. The Respondent No.2-Committee has rightly considered the
Gaikwad RD 3 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
material before it and rightly rejected the Petitioner's Tribe Claim and
no interference was called for in the impugned order.
8. We have perused the record submitted by the learned AGP
received from the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The genealogy
submitted by the Petitioner's father in the prescribed format to the
committee is reproduced below :
9. There is no dispute in respect of the aforesaid genealogy. In
support of his tribe claim, the petitioner submitted the following
documents:
Gaikwad RD 4 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
10. The aforesaid chart shows that, the earliest entries from the
school record were that of the grandfather, cousin grandfather and
cousin grandmother. The impugned order goes to show that, the
Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry with the said Zilla Parishad School
at Dhaval, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara in respect of the said entries
and it found that, the said entries in respect of the caste were
interpolated and 'Hindu Mahadev Koli' was written. The copies of the
said school extract are there in the record.
11. A close scrutiny of the said entries in respect of the grandfather,
cousin grandfather and cousin grandmother of the Petitioner goes to
indicate that, in the column ‘Caste’ and ‘Sub-caste’, the irst word
written is ‘Hindu’, and thereafter it is written ‘Mahadev’ and thereafter
it is written ‘Koli’. Considering the said entries, the observation by the
Scrutiny Committee that, the same is interpolated or there is insertion
of the word ‘Mahadev’ cannot be discarded. The said observation by
Gaikwad RD 5 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee appears to be based on the
Vigilance Cell Report. The close scrutiny of the said entry from the
record shows that, the observation of the Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny
Committee cannot be said to be baseless. It is true that, on the earlier
occasion the said was not the inding of the Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny
Committee, however, on re-inquiry, the Vigilance Cell found the
aforesaid aspect in the school record of the grandfather, cousin
grandfather and cousin grandmother of the Petitioner.
12. Even for the sake of argument, the contention of the Petitioner
that, there is no insertion of word ‘Mahadev’ in the school record of
grandfather, cousin grandfather and cousin grandmother in respect of
their caste entries, is accepted, the Vigilance Cell found the entries in
the revenue records of Tahsil Oice Khandala, Taluka Khandala, District
Satara in respect of the birth entries of the grandfather, cousin
grandfather, cousin grandmother and other blood relatives of the
Petitioner. The said entries are much prior to the entries in the school
record of the Petitioner’s grandfather, cousin grandfather and cousin
grandmother. The said school record is of the year 1943, whereas the
entries in the revenue records are of earlier period between 1882 and
1944. The entries found in the revenue records in respect of the
grandfather, cousin grandfather and other blood relatives of the
Petitioner are reproduced below :
Gaikwad RD 6 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
13. The impugned order further shows that, the Vigilance Cell found
the entriy in respect of death of the cousin great grandfather of the
Petitioner namely ‘Pandu bin Sakharam Koli’, wherein his caste is
mentioned as ‘Koli’ and the said entry is of 21 st November 1811. The
aforesaid chart, which is based on the revenue records, the copies of
which are kept in the record, goes to show that, the caste of the
Petitioner's blood relatives, i.e. grandfather and cousin grandfather
mentioned in the oldest record is recorded as ‘Koli’. The said revenue
entries, being prior in point of time to the aforesaid entries in the school
records of the Petitioner's grandfather and cousin grandfather, would
undisputedly carry greater probative value.
14. On the basis of the aforesaid material on record, the Respondent
No. 2-Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Tribe Claim of the Petitioner.
The observations and the decision of the Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny
Committee is based on the documents collected during Vigilance Cell
enquiry and no fault can be found with the same. In the backdrop of the
Gaikwad RD 7 of 8
901-WP-18335-2024.doc
above discussion, no fault can be found with the impugned order passed
by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Petitioner's
claim towards the 'Mahadev Koli' Scheduled Tribe. The petition fails and
the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.
(ii) The record be returned to the respondent no. 2 Scrutiny
Committee.
[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Digitally
signed by
RAJU
RAJU DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.08.27
20:34:43
+0530
Gaikwad RD 8 of 8
Checking your session…