DEEPAK RAJARAM SAWANTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA SOCIAL WELFARE DEPT. AND ORS.

                                                         2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


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

                   WRIT PETITION NO. 2979 OF 2026
Deepak Rajaram Sawant,
Aged 64 years, Occ: Social service,
Residing at A/ 22, Om Amey CHS
Limited, Bhandup (E), Mumbai – 400042.      ...Petitioner.
        Versus
1.    State of Maharashtra,
      Social Welfare Department,
      Mantralay, Mumbai.

2.      District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny
        Committee, Ratnagiri District, Ratnagiri.
        Through its Member-Secretary,

3.      Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
        Through its commissioner,
        OPP. CST, Mumbai – 400001

4.      Tahsildar, Ratnagiri,
        District ratnagiri,

5.      Sarika Mangesh Pawar,
        Aged adult, Occ. Not known
        Residing at Pawar House,
        Near R. B. I. Quarters,
        Bhandup (E), Mumbai-400042.                   ....Respondents.
                                ——————
Mr. R. K. Mendadkar, i/b. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, Mr. Ashish Chavan, Advocates for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP, for the Respondents-State.
Mr. Shridhar Patil (Through VC), for the Repsondent-UOI.
Mr. S. R. Ganabavale with Mr. S. Bedekar & Mr. S. Yadav, Advocates for the
Respondent No.5.
                                 ——————
                                   Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                               Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                           Reserved on :       September 11, 2026.
                         Pronounced on :       September 28, 2026.


Gaikwad RD                         1 of 14
                                                      2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1.      By consent of both the sides heard inally at the admission stage.

2.      By the present writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the

order dated 15th June 2026 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee invalidating the claim of the Petitioner as belonging to the

‘Kunbi’ caste, which comes under the Other Backward Class category

(‘OBC’).

3.      The Petitioner claims to be belonging to the ‘Kunbi’ caste, which

comes in the category of OBC. The Petitioner contested the elections

to the Respondent No.3-Municipal Corporation from the seat reserved

for the OBC category. The Petitioner got elected. The caste claim of

the Petitioner came to be referred to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee. In support of his caste claim, the Petitioner relied on 12

documents.      The vigilance inquiry was directed. The Vigilance Cell

conducted the inquiry and submitted the report. The Respondent No.5-

Complainant opposed the Petitioner's claim before the Respondent

No.2-Scrutiny Committee and submitted 36 documents in support of her

contention that the Petitioner did not belong to the ‘Kunbi’ caste.

Considering the documents on record, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee invalidated the Petitioner's claim by the impugned order.

4.      It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, despite


Gaikwad RD                        2 of 14
                                                    2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


the pre-Constitution era entry of the cousin grandfather of the

Petitioner showing the caste as ‘Kunbi’, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee invalidated the caste claim for unsustainable reasons. The

said entry was in Modi script, which came to be translated. The said pre-

Constitution era document was from the revenue record from the oice

of Respondent No.4-Tahsildar.    The Respondent No. 4-Tahsildar was

never called and examined by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee

and, therefore, the said document cannot be discarded.         The Rules

framed under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-

notiied Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special

Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Veriication of) Caste

Certiicate Act, 2000 provides that the Committee is duty-bound to

record its reasons before discarding the Vigilance Cell report. The

Vigilance Cell report was in favour of the Petitioner. However, without

giving any reasons, the same is discarded by the Respondent No.2-

Scrutiny Committee. The Petitioner had submitted the detailed reply to

the show cause notice issued by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee and the said reply is not even considered by the Respondent

No.2-Scrutiny Committee. As the pre-Constitution era document has

more probative value, the Committee erred in law in discarding the said

entry and invalidating the Petitioner's claim. It is submitted that the

petition be allowed and the order passed by the Respondent No.2-


Gaikwad RD                      3 of 14
                                                   2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


Scrutiny Committee and the order passed by the Respondent No.3-

Municipal Corporation be quashed and set aside and the Petitioner be

issued the validity certiicate as belonging to the ‘Kunbi’ caste.       In

support of his submissions, he relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India, which are considered in the latter part of the

judgment.

5.      It is submitted by the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos.

1, 2 and 4 that the pre-Constitution era document relied by the

Petitioner is rightly discarded by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee, as found to be inserted in the revenue record and,

therefore, the said document cannot form the basis to set aside the

impugned order. She submitted that, the Petitioner failed to establish

his claim before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee and no fault

can be found with the impugned order and the petition be dismissed.

6.      It is submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent No.5-

Complainant that, it was revealed during the vigilance inquiry that the

purported death entry in the Birth and Death Register of the purported

cousin grandfather of the Petitioner was fabricated and, therefore, the

Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has rightly discarded the said

document. The school leaving certiicates of the father and two uncles

of the Petitioner mention the caste as ‘Maratha’, and the said



Gaikwad RD                       4 of 14
                                                    2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


documents are also the pre-Constitution era documents. There was no

requirement under the law mandating the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee or the Vigilance Cell to examine the Tahsildar. The school

leaving certiicates showing the caste as ‘Maratha’ of the Petitioner's

father and two uncles are not disputed by the Petitioner and the

Petitioner merely stated before Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee

that, he was unaware of the said school leaving certiicates. There is no

requirement under the law that the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee should call for the expert opinion to ascertain the veracity of

the document before considering the document. The Petitioner failed

to establish the relationship with Waman Jairam Daji Sawant shown in

the genealogy, as the cousin grandfather. The Petitioner consciously

suppressed the school leaving certiicates of his father and two uncles,

wherein the caste is shown as ‘Maratha’. The Petitioner could have

relied upon the caste credentials of his grandfather-Vishnu Jairam Daji

Sawant, who passed away in the year 1993. However, he relied on the

1901 extract, the validity of which remains under suspicion.           The

statements recorded by the Vigilance Cell during the inquiry

demonstrate that the Petitioner belongs to the ‘Maratha’ caste. No

fault can be found with the impugned order and the petition be

dismissed. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decisions of

this Court, which are considered in the latter part of the judgment.


Gaikwad RD                      5 of 14
                                                       2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


7.      We had called for the original record from the oice of Caste

Scrutiny Committee and inspected the same. The Petitioner's claim

towards the ‘Kunbi’ caste is based on the death entry dated 29 th

December 1901 of Waman Jairam Daji Sawant, resident of Khedshi,

wherein the caste is mentioned as ‘Kunbi’. The Petitioner claims that,

the said Waman Jairam Daji Sawant was the real brother of his

grandfather. The genealogy submitted by the Petitioner before the

Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee shows that, he was the son of

Rajaram. Rajaram is shown to be the son of Vishnu. Vishnu is shown to

be the son of Jairam Daji Sawant. Waman and Bhagi are shown as the

brothers of Vishnu. The said entry of 1901 is from the revenue record from

the oice of Tahsildar, Ratnagiri. The record shows that the Vigilance Cell

during the inquiry sought information in respect of the said entry and the

copies of documents of the record from the oice of Tahsildar, Ratnagiri

came to be provided from the oice of Tahsildar, Ratnagiri to the Vigilance

Cell by communication dated 28th January 2026. The said communication

shows that, the Tahsildar, Ratnagiri provided the information in respect of

the said entry of 1901 of Waman Jairam Daji Sawant that; the said entry was

from the Birth and Death Register maintained by the Tahsil Oice; there

was no interpolation in the said register; the entries in the register were in

Modi script; the original record in the Modi script was not available and the

said entry was provided from the register, which was rewritten.


Gaikwad RD                        6 of 14
                                                        2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


8.      The record shows that, the copies of the said register titled as

'Village Format No. 14' were provided vide the said letter.                The

impugned order shows that, the copies of the said register provided by

the Tahsildar, Ratnagiri is considered by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee recorded the

inding that, the said document having the name Waman Jairam Daji

Sawant showing his caste as ‘Kunbi’, was from the Village Format No. 14.

The relation between the applicant and Waman Jairam Daji Sawant is not

established from the documents. Perusal of the copies from the Village

Format No.14 Register from the oice of Tahsil, Ratnagiri shows that on

the irst page, it is written 'Book No. 1, pages No. 1 to 13'. The said register

is of the year 1901. The writings in the said register was in Modi script.

The pages are from 1 to 17. There are 26 entries in respect of birth. The

last birth entry in the said register was dated 3 rd December 1901 (Entry No.

26 on page No. 000013 in the birth column). There are 25 death entries in

the said register. The last death entry was dated 2 nd December 1901

(Entry No. 25 on page No. 000013 in the column of death). Thereafter, the

entries on the page No. 00013 of the said register appears to be the last

birth and death entries of the year 1901. On Page No.000013, the word

'examined' and the date of examination is written as ‘01.06.1902 after the

death Entry No.25 and below that, there is the signature and the

designation of the verifying oicer. Likewise, on Page No.000013, in the


Gaikwad RD                         7 of 14
                                                          2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


birth column, summary of birth of 14 boys and 12 girls in that year is

mentioned. On page No. 000013, in the column of death, it is mentioned

that in the said year, 13 males and 12 females died.                 Thus, upon

scrutinising and examining summary of the entries in the Register, it is not

possible that there would be the entries in respect of birth and death in the

year 1901, because the pages thereafter bearing handwritten number as

13, 14 and 15 are blank and there is no entry in respect of birth and death on

the said pages. On the page upon which number 16 is written by hand, there is

the death entry of Waman Jairam Daji Sawant mentioning the date as

29.12.1901, resident of Khedshi, Caste-Kunbi, Age 11 and death due to fever.

There is no serial number to the said entry. In the register, the last death entry

was at Sr.No.25 and there were three blank pages in between and the said

entry on the Page No.16 was interpolated, as seen from naked eyes. The said

entry appears to be false and fabricated. On Page No.17 of the said register, it

is mentioned that the Register contains Page Nos.1 to 17. The report of the

Tahsildar, Ratnagiri dated 28.01.2020 was distorted. As per Point No.4 from

the said report, the original record in the Modi script was not available and the

extract was given from the rewritten register. On the remaining blank pages

of the register, the said entry was seen interpolated in the Modi script and by

translating the same in Marathi, the death certiicate was issued.             The

observations in Point No.3 to 5 in the report of Tahsildar were incorrect. The

said death entry of Waman Jairam Daji Sawant was false.”


Gaikwad RD                          8 of 14
                                                   2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


9.       Perusal of the copies of the said documents provided by the

Tahsildar, Ratnagiri vide the aforesaid letter shows that, the above

observations by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee are based on

the said document. The said observations by the Committee are found

to be in consonance with the copies of the said documents having the

death entry of Waman Jairam Daji Sawant.        Admittedly, no expert

opinion is sought by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee or the

Vigilance Cell in respect of the said death entry relied upon by the

Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the

Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sayanna vs. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.,1 which was relating to the claim towards the

‘Mannerwarlu’ Scheduled Tribe. In the said case the Police Inspector of

the Vigilance Cell had stated that the word 'lu' was subsequently added,

while recording the caste of the Appellant therein as ‘Mannerwarlu’ in

the school register. The Committee had concurred with the said report

of Vigilance Cell and came to the conclusion that the word 'lu' was

interpolated. It was observed that it was diicult to understand as to

on what basis the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the

word 'lu' was interpolated in the register of the school, more

particularly, when it was not opined by the Police Inspector, who had

conducted the inquiry. It was observed that, whether interpolation by

1    (2009) 10 SCC 268.


Gaikwad RD                      9 of 14
                                                      2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


addition has taken place can be stated by a Handwriting Expert or by

comparison of admitted letters of a person with the disputed one and it

was an admitted position that the Scrutiny Committee had never

attempted to get an expert's opinion nor itself had compared the

disputed letters with admitted one of the Appellant and it was observed

that the inding by the Scrutiny Committee in respect of interpolation

was regarded as based on no credible evidence.

10.     In the case at hand, for want of expert opinion, the observations/

indings of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee cannot be ignored as

the same is based on the material available on record in the nature of

copies of the documents available from the Tahsildar oice. The entry

of Waman Jairam Daji Sawant is not in continuation of the entries in the

said register. It is the isolated entry on Page No.16 written in hand after

the blank pages at Sr.No.13, 14 and 15. Neither there is the serial

number to the said isolated entry, nor having any remarks in respect of

its veriication by the concerned oicer. The said isolated entry, which

is relied upon by the Petitioner, is highly suspicious, as is clear from the

above observations. True it is that as per the decision in the case of

Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development & Ors.2 relied upon by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner, the entries of pre-Constitution period has the great

2   (1994) 6 SCC 241.


Gaikwad RD                       10 of 14
                                                    2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


evidentiary value. However, since the said pre-Constitution era entry

relied upon by the Petitioner being suspicious and not the credible

material, the same cannot form the basis to validate the Petitioner's

claim towards ‘Kunbi’ caste.       No fault can be found with the

observations made in the impugned order discarding the said pre-

constitution era entry relied upon by the Petitioners. In absence of any

mandate to summon the Tahsildar, Ratnagiri by the Respondent No.2-

Committee before considering the said pre-constitution era entry and

non-examining the Tahsildar, Ratnagiri by the Respondent No.2- Scrutiny

Committee will not vitiate the impugned order.

11.     Another ground for invalidation of the Petitioner's claim towards

‘Kunbi’ caste is that the caste 'Maratha' is shown in the school leaving

certiicates of the Petitioner's father Rajaram Vishnu Sawant and

Petitioner's uncles namely Yashwant Vishnu Sawant and Maruti Vishnu

Sawant.      It is clear from the record that, the said school leaving

certiicates of the Petitioner’s father and uncles were furnished by the

Respondent No.5-Complainant. The copies of the said school leaving

certiicates, which are in the ile of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee, shows that, the admission of the Petitioner's uncle

Yashwant was dated 1st April 1935, the admission of the Petitioner's

uncle Maruti in the school was dated 8 th June 1942, and the school




Gaikwad RD                      11 of 14
                                                    2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


admission of Petitioner's father Rajaram was dated 17 th May 1939. The

record shows that the Vigilance Oicer by letter dated 11 th February

2026 addressed to the Headmaster of the Zilla Parishad Central School,

Khedshi No.1, Taluka and District Ratnagiri sought the necessary

information in respect of the copies of the said school leaving

certiicates of Petitioner's father and uncles. The record further shows

that, the Headmaster of the said school provided the information to the

Vigilance Oicer and supplied certiied xerox copies from the school

general register having the entries of Maruti Vishnu Sawant, Rajaram

Vishnu Sawant and Yashwant Vishnu Sawant showing the aforesaid

dates as the date of their admission in the school. The information

supplied by the Headmaster of the school shows that, the caste of the

Petitioner's father and uncles is recorded as 'Maratha'. The said entry,

as is clear from the date of the school admission, clearly shows that the

said entries are also prior to 1950, i.e., of the pre-constitution era.

There is no challenge to the said document provided by the school

Headmaster in respect of Petitioner's father and uncles.         The only

contention of the Petitioner in respect of the said ‘Maratha’ caste entry

against the names of Petitioner's father and uncles, as can be seen from

the response to the show cause notice, is that the said documents, i.e.,

the school record, will not prevail over oldest documents on record. The

Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has rightly observed that, the


Gaikwad RD                     12 of 14
                                                             2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


said three documents from the school were of pre-constitution period

and as per the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. (supra), have

more probative value. When undisputedly the ‘Maratha’ caste entries

against the name of the Petitioner's father and uncles are of pre-

constitution era, the same cannot be ignored and have more probative

value.

12.      It is clear from the record, on which there is no dispute, that the

Petitioner did not disclose the said ‘Maratha’ entries to the Respondent

No.2- Scrutiny Committee. It is the Respondent No.5-complainant, who

brought on record the said material. This indicates that the Petitioner

suppressed the said material in respect of the school record of his

father and uncles from the Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee. In

the light of the above discussion, the judgments in the case of Anand v.

Committee for Scrutiny,3 Veena Ashok Godse v. State of Maharashtra &

Ors.4 Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamaat Swarakshan Samiti v. State

of Maharashtra & Ors.,5 Yogesh Madhav Makalwar v. State of

Maharashtra & Ors.,6 Minakshi Manohar Gholap v. State of Maharashtra

& Ors.,7 and Shri Pratap Singh v. Shivram8 relied by the learned counsel

for the Petitioner will not enure to the beneit of the Petitioner.


3   (2012) 1 SCC 113.
4   Civil appeal No.19968 of 2017 Dtd. 29th November 2017.
5   2023 SCC OnLine SC 326.
6   AIR 2025 SC 3746.
7   Writ Petition No.2204 of 2014 Dtd. 28th January 2015.
8   AIR 2020 SC 1382.


Gaikwad RD                                 13 of 14
                                                                               2-WP-2979-2026 (C)-J.doc


                        13.        Once, the entry of 1901 showing the caste as ‘Kunbi’ is found to

                        be not credible material and suspicious, what remains is the pre-

                        constitution era entries in the school record of the Petitioner's father

                        and uncles showing the caste as ‘Maratha’. The impugned order goes to

                        show that Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee considered the

                        documents on record, including the reply given by the Petitioner to the

                        show cause notice and the written submissions submitted by the

                        Petitioner before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The

                        impugned order is a reasoned order. Consideration of the judgments

                        cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 is not necessary,

                        in the backdrop of the above discussion. In this view of the matter, we

                        see no reason to interfere with the impugned order of invalidation of

                        the Petitioner's caste claim towards ‘Kunbi’ (OBC). The petition fails.

                        Hence, the following order:

                                                            ORDER

                              i)      The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

                              ii)     The record of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee be

                                      returned to the learned AGP.



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

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.09.28
           22:04:10
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                         14 of 14