MADHURI SUNIL MUDHALEversusTHE DISTRICT CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, KOLHAPUR AND ORS

                                                                                         37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


          Digitally signed
          by HARISH                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH    VITHAL
VITHAL    CHAUDHARI
CHAUDHARI Date:
                                                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
          2026.10.05
          18:50:40 +0530                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 OF 2026

                             Smt. Madhuri Sunil Mudhale                                  ...Petitioner.
                                     Versus
                             The District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee,
                             Kolhapur and Others                                         ...Respondents
                                                              ——————
                             Adv. Wasim Samlewale i/b Tejpal Ingale for the Petitioner.
                             Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl GP a/w Ms. Tejas J. Kapre AGP for the Respondent-State.
                             Adv. Vishal V. Mane a/w Nikita J. Salunkhe, Asmita N. Chougale, Sakshi M. Lokare
                             And Bhimsen B. Kamble for Respondent No. 3.
                                                              ——————

                                                                Coram :      Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                                                Date       : September 24, 2026.

                             P. C. :

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

                             2.        Impugned in this Writ Petition is the order dated 16 th June, 2026

                             passed by the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee invalidating the

                             claim of Petitioner towards Dhangar (Nomadic Tribe-C).

                             3.        The Petitioner claims to be belonging to the Dhangar (Nomadic

                             Tribe-C). The Competent Authority issued the caste certiicate to the

                             Petitioner as belonging to the Dhangar (Nomadic Tribe-C). The

                             Petitioner contested the general elections to the Hupari Municipal

                             Council in the year 2025 from the seat reserved for the woman from the

                             backward category. The Petitioner got elected as the Councilor to the


                             Harish                              1 of 13
                                                         37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


said Municipal Council by defeating Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner's

caste certiicate was referred to the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny

Committee for veriication. The Petitioner relied on the caste certiicate

issued in her name by the Competent Authority, on the school leaving

certiicate in the name of the Petitioner, on the school leaving

certiicate in the name of Petitioner's brother Anand Shamrao

Athanikar, and on the birth entry of 1 st May, 1960 of her father Shamrao

Vitthal Athanikar.

4.       The Respondent No.3 submitted the complaint to the Respondent

No. 1 Scrutiny Committee that, Petitioner do not belong to the Dhangar

(Nomadic Tribe-C) Tribe and false documents were submitted in support

of the caste claim. The Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee directed

the inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell conducted the

inquiry and submitted its report. The copy of the report was served on

the Petitioner along with the notice by the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny

Committee. The Petitioner submitted her say to the said report. After

considering the documents on record, the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny

Committee passed the impugned order invalidating the caste claim of

the Petitioner.

5.       It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, one of

the ground on which the Petitioner's claim is invalidated is that, the

Petitioner was not the resident of State of Maharashtra prior to the


Harish                            2 of 13
                                                      37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


deemed date 21st November 1961. The Petitioner could lay hands to the

voters' list of 1958 of the Hatkanangle Constituency for the Legislative

Assembly of the Erstwhile Bombay State, wherein the names of

Petitioner's grandfather Dhangar Vitthu Bapu, Petitioner's great-

grandmother Dhangar Balabai Bapu and Petitioner's grandmother

Dhangar Santubai Vitthu were included as the voters at serial Nos. 17,

18 and 19. From the said document, it was clear that, prior to the said

deemed date, the Petitioner's ancestors were the resident of

Pattankodoli which was the part of the Erstwhile Bombay State. This

document was suicient to hold that, the ground of non-resident of the

State of Maharashtra prior to the said deemed date recorded by the

Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee will not sustain. He further

submitted that, the birth entry of the Petitioner's father, which was

prior to the said deemed date, was discarded by the Respondent No. 1

Scrutiny Committee on the ground that, it was interpolated. The said

observation of the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee was not

supported by any opinion from the expert and therefore the said

ground for rejection of the Petitioner's claim would be unsustainable.

He relied on the decision in Nayabrao and others versus Scheduled Tribe

Caste Scrutiny Committee and Another; [2026 SCC OnLine Bom 3865]. He

submitted that, the petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned

order passed by the Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee and the


Harish                         3 of 13
                                                       37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


order passed by Respondent No. 2-District Collector cancelling the

Petitioner's membership as the Councilor of the Hupari Municipal

Council.

6.       It is submitted by learned AGP for the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2

that, the Petitioner failed to prove before the Respondent No. 1

Scrutiny Committee that, she belong to the Dhangar (Nomadic Tribe-C).

The birth entry dated 1st May, 1960 of the Petitioner's father from the

Gram Panchayat record was found to be interpolated and the

Committee on the basis of the said interpolation discarded the said

documentary evidence which was relied by the Petitioner. As the

interpolation was clearly seen from the record of Gram Panchayat,

calling of the expert opinion was not necessary. He further submitted

that, the Petitioner failed to prove that, her ancestors were the resident

of State of Maharashtra prior to the aforesaid deemed date. The

impugned order shows that, the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee

considered the documents available on record and gave reasons in

support of the invalidation of the Petitioner's caste claim. He submitted

that, there was no merit in the petition and the same be dismissed.

7.       The original ile of the Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee in

respect of the Petitioner's caste claim was made available by the

learned AGP. We perused the impugned order and the original record.

The Petitioner's caste claim is invalidated on two grounds: (1) the oldest


Harish                           4 of 13
                                                       37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


entry dated 1st May 1960 was found interpolated; (2) the Petitioner

failed to show that, her ancestors were the resident of State of

Maharashtra prior to the deemed date 21st November 1961.

8.       The Petitioner submitted the following genealogy before the

Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee which is not disputed :




The Petitioner based her caste claim on the birth entry of her father

Shamrao Vitthal Athanikar recorded in the birth and death register

maintained in Form No. 14 of the village Pattankodoli, Taluka

Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur. The record shows that, the Vigilance Cell

conducted the inquiry in respect of the said record in which the said

birth entry was made. The Respondent No. 1 Scrutiny Committee noted

that, the said birth entry in the name of Shamrao Vitthal Bapu Athanikar

was on page No. 7 of the birth-death register at serial No. 74 and on

page No. 8 the entries were from serial No. 74 to 89. On page No. 7

there was the extract/summary in respect of the births and deaths in

the month of April 1960 which was found to be interpolated. The


Harish                          5 of 13
                                                        37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


Committee observed that, it was clear that the entry at serial No. 74 on

page No. 7 was interpolated and therefore the said document cannot be

relied.

9.       The colour photocopy of the relevant pages from the said birth-

death register of village Pattankodoli, Taluka Hatkanangle, District

Kolhapur of the year 1960 are the part of the record. The said copies are

of the format No. 14 in respect of birth and death register of said

village. On page No. 7, there are four entries and the last entry is given

serial No. 74 which is dated 1st May, 1960 showing the birth of one baby

boy against the name Shamrao Vitthal Bapu Athanikar, Dhangar, Hindu.

On page No. 8 of the said register, the irst entry is also given serial No.

74 dated 5th May, 1960 and the last entry is serial No.89 dated 21 st May,

1960. On page No. 7 of the said register, there is extract/summary of

the births and deaths for the month of April 1960. On close scrutiny of

the said colour photocopies/xerox of page Nos. 7 and 8 of the said birth

and death register, it becomes clear that, the irst three birth entries on

page No. 7 are of the month April 1960. The last entry on page No. 7 at

serial No. 74 is dated 1st May, 1960. The entries on page No. 8 are of the

births and deaths in the month of May 1960. The extract/summary on

page No. 7 shows that 14 (overwritten) male child and 4 girl child gave

birth, there were 2 deaths of male persons and 3 deaths of women. The

total number below the column of birth is shown as 18 (overwritten)


Harish                           6 of 13
                                                       37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


and the total number below the death column is shown as 5, and the

value after its subtraction is shown as 12. By naked eye, it is seen that

the second number in the birth column of the summary/extract against

the male child is corrected. The total number of male births is corrected

to 14 and the total is corrected to 18. Subtracting number 5 from

number 18, the result should be 13. However, the result of subtraction

is shown as 12. It is thus clear from the summary/extract of births and

deaths given on page No. 7 of the said register that, the number of male

births is tampered and increased by one (1) and the total number of

births is also tampered and increased by one (1).

10.      The photocopies of the page Nos. 7 and 8 from the said register

are reproduced below for clarity :




Harish                           7 of 13
                                                     37-WP-3068 -2026.doc




11.      On record is the photocopy of page No. 7 of the said register

without interpolation or overwriting. The same is reproduced below:




Harish                          8 of 13
                                                          37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


12.      It is clear from the said documents that, the entry at serial No. 74

dated 1st May, 1960 showing the birth of one male child against the

name Shamrao Vitthal Bapu Athanikar is interpolated. When the entries

are made month wise on separate pages, it is strange and highly

suspicious as to how the birth of May month is shown on the page

having the birth entries for the month of April. Further, the number 5 in

the birth date at Serial No. 74 on page No. 7 is overwritten. The entry of

May 1960 in normal course would have been on page No. 8 which shows

the birth and death entries in the village for the month of May. The

page No. 7 of the said register was for the entries pertains to the month

of April. By comparing the aforesaid documents, it becomes more than

clear that there was interpolation and tampering in the oicial record.

Therefore, it is clear that the entry at serial No. 74 dated 1 st May, 1960

on page No. 7 was not made in the normal course and rightly discarded

by the Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee. With this clear case of

interpolation and tampering, the observations made by the Respondent

No. 2 Scrutiny Committee in respect of the interpolation and tampering

cannot be faulted and cannot be discarded for want of expert opinion.

The need for expert opinion does not arise when the page No. 7 of

original record is juxtaposed with the tampered page No. 7. With the

above discussed material on record, the decision in Nayabrao (supra) is

of no assistance to the Petitioner.


Harish                             9 of 13
                                                        37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


13.      As regards the second ground for invalidation of the Petitioner's

caste claim that, her ancestors were not the resident of State of

Maharashtra prior to the deemed date 21 st November, 1961 is

concerned, undisputedly, the Petitioner did not place on record before

the Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee, the document to show that,

her parents or the ancestors were the resident of the State of

Maharashtra prior to the said deemed date. It is before this Court, the

petitioner has submitted the additional aidavit dated 3 rd August, 2026

stating that, in the electoral roll of 1958 the names of her paternal

ancestors were recorded as the resident of village Pattankadoli, Taluka

Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur, which was prior to the said deemed

date. The copy of the voters list of the year 1958 in respect of the

Hatkanangale Constituency of the erstwhile Bombay State is enclosed

with the aidavit. This document was not before the Respondent No. 1-

Scrutiny Committee. As the Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee had

no opportunity to deal with the said voters list, we do not ind it

necessary to make observation on the said document. Even if the same

is accepted, the irst ground in respect of interpolation and tampering

in the aforesaid public record, as discussed above by itself is more than

suicient to uphold the impugned order of invalidation of caste claim of

the Petitioner.




Harish                           10 of 13
                                                       37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


14.      The Petitioner failed to prove her caste claim before the

Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee. The school leaving certiicate

issued by the Headmaster, Esther Patton Highschool, Kolhapur in the

name of the Petitioner records the Petitioner's caste as ‘Maratha.’ It is

needless to state that Section 8 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes, De-Notiied Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes,

Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of

issuance and veriication of) Caste Certiicate Act, 2000 provides that,

the burden to prove the caste is on the person who claims that he

belongs to a particular caste. The Petitioner failed to discharge the said

burden. Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee has passed a reasoned

order which calls for no interference.


15.      Undisputedly, the Petitioner contested the general elections to

the Municipal Council, Hupari and got elected on the seat reserved for

the woman from the reserved category. The Petitioner relied on the

interpolated document in support of her caste claim. The provisions of

Section 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-

Notiied Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes

and Special Backward Category (Regulation of issuance and veriication

of) Caste Certiicate Act, 2000 provides for penal action in such cases.

The said section reads as under:




Harish                           11 of 13
                                                             37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


         “11. Ofences and penalties.

         (1)     Whoever,-
               (a)   obtains a false Caste Certiicate by furnishing false
                     information or iling false statement or documents or
                     by any other fraudulent means; or
               (b) not being a person belonging to any of the Scheduled
                   Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notiied Tribes (Vimukta
                   Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
                   Special Backward Category secures any beneits or
                   appointments exclusively reserved for such Castes,
                   Tribes, or Classes in the Government, local authority or
                   any other company or corporation owned or controlled
                   by the Government or in any Government aided
                   institution, or secures admission in any educational
                   institution against a seat exclusively reserved for such
                   Castes, Tribes or Classes or is elected to any of the
                   elective oices of any local authority or co-operative
                   society against the oice, reserved for such Castes,
                   Tribes or Classes by producing a false Caste Certiicate;
                   Shall, on conviction, be punished, with rigorous
                   imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
                   six months but which may extend upto two years or
                   with ine which shall not be less than two thousand
                   rupees, but which may extend upto twenty thousand
                   rupees or both.

         (2) No court shall take cognizance of an ofence punishable
             under this section except upon a complaint, in writing,
             made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other oicer
             duly authorised by the Scrutiny Committee for this
             purpose.”


          Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee may consider invoking the said



Harish                               12 of 13
                                                     37-WP-3068 -2026.doc


provision if it deems it. In the backdrop of the above discussion, we

proceed to pass the following order:

                                ORDER

   a) The writ petition is dismissed.

   b)    The original record be returned to the learned AGP to be
         returned to the Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee.



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




Harish                          13 of 13