CHETAN JITENDRA THAKURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH TRIBAL DEPARTMENT ANT ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:42564-DB


                                               1            wp 4001-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 4001 OF 2026

                 Chetan Jitendra Thakur
                 Age : 18 years, Occ. : Education
                 R/o – Indira Nagar Parisar,
                 VTC Paldhi Bk.
                 Tal Dharangaon and District Jalgaon.                  .. Petitioner

                        Versus

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra
                        Through Tribal Department
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai.

                 2.     Joint Commissioner cum Vice Chairman
                        Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
                        Committee, Dhule                               .. Respondents

                 Mr. M. R. Wagh, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                 Mr. A. S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

                                        CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                 Date on which reserved for order : 23rd July 2026.

                 Date on which order pronounced : 16th September 2026.

                 FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :-

                 1.     The petitioner has approached this Court challenging

                 judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 2 – scrutiny

                 committee, Dhule dated 13.01.2026 whereby claim of the

                 petitioner is invalidated as belonging to Scheduled Tribe category.

                 Further prayer is to direct the committee to grant a certificate in
                              2              wp 4001-2026.odt


favour of the petitioner showing him to be belonging to Thakur

community, a Scheduled Tribe.


2.    The facts in short are that the petitioner happens to be a

student. He claims to belong to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe. He

obtained the certificate from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Erandol

showing his tribe as ‘Thakur’. His proposal is sent for validation by

the school in which he is studying. In support of his claim he

relied upon the validity certificate of his second cousin namely

Pranav Thakur. He also relied upon the documents in respect of

his great grandfather, Ramkrushna Thakur and his cousin

grandfather, Narayan Thakur whose caste is shown as Hindu

Thakur in the school record. He also relied upon the school record

of his great great grandfather whose birth date is shown to be

06.05.1899 in the school record. The committee however found

that these entries could not be verified properly. Other entries

though are in the name of Hindu Thakur, those are post-

constitutional era and therefore, those are not accepted by the

committee. The committee further held that the petitioner not

come from the area where people from Thakur community are

found. The validities in the name of near relatives namely Suresh
                                          3     wp 4001-2026.odt


Devram Nikumbh and Suresh Madhavrao Thakur are concerned,

the petitioner could not establish relation with them. The validity

granted in favour of Shankar Ramkrushna Nikumbh is recalled by

the committee. On these counts the committee invalidated

petitioner’s claim.


3.       Learned advocate Mr. Wagh for the petitioner vehemently

argued that the committee has erred in not relying upon the

documents from the pre-constitutional era. There are entries in

the name of his great grandfather, grandfather, cousin grandfather

showing the caste to be Hindu Thakur. The committee while

discarding the said evidence has not given proper reasons. There

are also entries even after the post-constitution era of the relatives

showing them to be belonging to Hindu Thakur. The contra entries

are given much importance when, in fact those could not have

been taken to dislodge the claim. So far as affinity test is

concerned, he submits that the affinity test is only a corroborative

piece and is not a sole criteria to refuse grant of validity. He relied

upon the following judgments :


             (i) Somnath Gorakh Bagul And Another Vs. The
             State of Maharashtra And Another1.
1    W. P. No. 14732/2023 (Aurangabad Bench).
                                          4                 wp 4001-2026.odt




             (ii) Mohanish Bhikan Thakur Through Father
             Bhikan Narayan Thakur Vs. Director of Technical
             Education Maharashtra State And Others2.

             (iii)       Saurabh s/o Ashok Nikam Vs. The State of
             Maharashtra And Another3.


4.       Learned A.G.P. Mr. Shinde for both the respondents

vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that the committee

has rightly considered all the documents. So far as pre-

constitutional era documents are concerned, the committee has

rightly held that those documents are not found to be genuine.

The affinity test clearly goes against the petitioner. Even in the

pre-constitutional era the entries in the name of Narayan Govind

Nikumbh and Ramchandra Govind Nikumbh who happened to be

grand uncles of the petitioner, their caste is shown as Maratha

Thakur and ‘Hindu Bramhabhat’ respectively. In the school record

in one of the entries in case of Ramchandra Govind Nukumbh he

is shown as ‘Hindu Bramhabhat’ by striking out the word Thakur.

He      further      submits       that    the   father’s     entries     after   post-

constitutional era also show the caste as Hindu Thakur. However,

those cannot be relied upon being of post-constitution era. The
2    W. P. No. 8921/2019 (Aurangabad Bench).
3    W. P. No. 241/2022 (Aurangabad Bench).
                                5             wp 4001-2026.odt


committee has rightly considered this aspect.


5.    So far as validity holders are concerned namely Suresh

Devram Nikumbh and Suresh Madhavrao Thakur, the petitioner

could not show any relation with these two persons. One affidavit

is filed of Shankar Ramkrushna Nikumbh, however, he could not

get the affidavit of Suresh Nikumbh and Suresh Thakur. In the

genealogy submitted in Shankar’s file Suresh Nikumbh and Suresh

Thakur are not found.


6.    The petitioner relied only on the validity of Shankar.

However, Shankar’s validity is cancelled and writ petition against

cancelling his validity is pending. No documentary evidence is

produced to show relation with Suresh. So far as other validity

holders namely Bhatu Ramchandra Nikumbh, Deepak Shankar

Thakur and Chhaya Shankar Thakur it is rightly observed that in

the case of Bhatu Nikumbh show cause notice is issued. In the

case of Deepak Thakur, Chhaya Thakur and Pranav Thakur the

certificates are granted by this Court conditionally subject to

outcome of the reopened case of Shankar Nikumbh. The learned

A.G.P. thus prays for rejection of the petition.
                              6              wp 4001-2026.odt


7.    After hearing the parties, this Court has to only see as to

whether there is sufficient material produced by the petitioner to

prove his caste status as Hindu Thakur. Secondly, whether the

scrutiny committee – respondent No. 2 has rightly considered the

case of the petitioner.


8.    This Court has considered the submissions carefully. So far

as judgment in the case of Somnath Gorakh Bagul (supra) is

concerned, this Court in the said case granted validity. It is a case

wherein the validity granted to the petitioners came to be

cancelled by reopening their cases. It was considered that the

petitioners were granted validity in the year 2000-2001. It was

observed that the petitioner had obtained the validity certificate

by suppression of material facts as regards contra entries in

respect of blood relations. In the said case the petitioners had

produced the oldest document of 1877 from the school of one

Bhagwan Ramsing showing his caste as Thakur. The said

document was verified by the vigilance officer. There were no

adverse entries. There were also entries till 1932 in the relations

of the petitioners showing caste as Thakur. In that case the

committee has not recorded any cogent reason while discarding

the oldest record produced by the petitioners and in that view the
                               7              wp 4001-2026.odt


writ petition was allowed. The order of cancellation of validity

certificate was set aside.


9.       In the case of Mohanish Bhikan Thakur (supra), there was

school record of the year 1918 showing the caste of petitioner’s

great grandfather as Thakur. The subsequent entries were also

shown to be as Thakur. Only one isolated entry was found in the

name of one of the relatives where the caste was shown as ‘Hindu

Bhat’. This Court considering that there are consistent entries

showing the caste as Thakur and there is only one entry that too

of pre-constitutional era granted validity.


10.      In the case of Saurabh s/o Ashok Nikam (supra) the claim

was rejected by the committee on the ground that the petitioner

failed to prove his claim on the basis of documentary evidence.

Where the petitioner proved the certificate in favour of his close

blood relatives and whether the affinity was proved. This Court in

the facts of the case found that there are validities in the family

and by relying upon the judgment in the case of Apoorva d/o

Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee and

others4, had directed to grant validity.


4    2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.
                               8             wp 4001-2026.odt


11.   In the present case, the committee has considered the pre-

constitutional entries in respect of two grand uncles namely

Narayan Govind Nikumbh and Ramchandra Govind Nikumbh who

were shown as ‘Marathe Thakur’ and ‘Hindu Bramhabhat’

respectively. So far as great grandfather Ramkrushna Kalu Thakur

is concerned, his entry is of 1920. So far as Govinda Thakur, his

great grandfather is shown to be Thakur. The said entry is of

06.05.1899. However, this also could not be verified in the

vigilance cell investigation. The entry in the name of Narayan

Ramkrushna Thakur i.e. grand uncle from different branches is

also shown to be Hindu Thakur. The committee did not believe

those documents as those could not be verified through vigilance

cell. Other entries are post-constitution era and therefore, are

rightly not considered. However, looking to the reasoning part of

the judgment by the committee there is no doubt expressed about

the entry in the year 1920 in the name of great grandfather of the

petitioner. The committee has merely relied upon the entries of

other persons who are shown to be other than Thakur.


12.   So far as place of residence is concerned, now it is well

settled that merely if a person is not residing in the particular area
                              9             wp 4001-2026.odt


it is not a ground to deny the benefit. The submission of learned

A.G.P. is that the surname of the relatives of the petitioner do not

match with the surnames of the community Thakur. So far as

family traditions are concerned, the committee has come to

conclusion that it does not match with the traditions of Thakur

community. One more aspect needs to be considered that though

the petitioner has shown Suresh Nikumbh and Suresh Thakur in

relation, however he could not show the blood relation with them.

The only case relied upon was the case of Suresh Nikumbh.

However, his case is recalled. So far as other validities are

concerned, it is considered that those validities are not shown to

have been obtained by following proper procedure and those were

not considered by the committee.


13.   On considering all above aspects this Court finds that, no

doubt is expressed about the entry of the year 1920 in respect of

the grandfather of the petitioner wherein, caste is shown as

Thakur. No doubt is also expressed as regards grand uncle

wherein, caste is again recorded as Hindu Thakur in the year

1949. There are three contra entries prior to pre-constitutional

era, however those cannot be considered in the present case.
                                  10             wp 4001-2026.odt


Having accepted the 1920 and 1949 entries, the contra entries of

pre-constitutional era could not have been considered to deny the

benefit of the caste claim to the petitioner.


14.      Considering above, this Court finds that, the petitioner has

made out a case to allow the writ petition.


15.      The writ petition stands allowed. The impugned judgment

and order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the respondent No. 2 –

scrutiny committee is quashed and set aside. The committee is

directed to issue certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Hindu

Thakur, a Scheduled Tribe.


16.      With this, the writ petition stands disposed of.



( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.)                    ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )




P.S.B.