HARSHAD MUKUND PARCHANDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR SECRETARY, CULTURAL AND SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT AND ANR

                                                        902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


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

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 4340 OF 2026
Harshad Mukund Parchande,
Age: 22 Years, Occu.: Student
R/At- Natepute, Taluka: Malshiras,
District : Solapur, 413109.                         ...Petitioner.
                Versus
1.     The State of Maharashtra
       Through Secretary,
       Cultural & Social Welfare Department,
       Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.

2.      Schedule Tribe Certiicate Veriication
        Committee, Pune
        Through its Deputy Director and
        Member Secretary, Pune Division,
        Pune-411 001.                                     ...Respondents.
                               ——————
Mr. Satish S. Raut with Mr. Shubham Gangan, Mr. Ashitosh Jambilkar, Adv.
Prajakt Kamble & Mr. Omkar Koratkar, for the Petitioners.
Mr. R. P. Kadam, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondents-State.
                               ——————
                                 Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
                                 Date      : September 04, 2026.
JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1.      Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP

for the Respondents inally at the admission stage.

2.      Impugned in the writ petition is the order dated 28 th August 2026

passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, invalidating the

tribe claim of the Petitioner towards ‘Koli Mahadev’.


Gaikwad RD                        1 of 8
                                                           902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


3.       The petitioner is the student. For the purpose of further

education, he required the caste validity certiicate. The Petitioner is

having the caste certiicate issued by the Competent Authority as

belonging to the ‘Koli Mahadev’. The petitioner applied to the

Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee for validating his caste

certiicate. The Petitioner submitted certain documents in support of

his tribe claim. The Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee referred the

claim to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The Vigilance Cell submitted its

report. The copy of the Vigilance Cell report was given to the Petitioner.

After hearing the Petitioner and considering the documents on record,

the Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order.

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

Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee recorded the inding that the

pre-Constitution era document shows that, word 'Mahadev' was written

in the light ink and the word 'Koli' was written in the dark ink, and the

said entry was rewritten. The said observation of Respondent No. 2-

Scrutiny Committee was not based on any expert's opinion and

therefore, cannot be the reason to invalidate the tribe claim of the

Petitioner. The said observation without the report of the expert was

contrary to the decision of this Court in Manthan Vikas Adhatrao v. the

State of Maharashtra.1 The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee made

1    Writ Petition No.12787 of 2025 dtd. 27th July 2026.


Gaikwad RD                                      2 of 8
                                                      902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


contrary observations in the impugned order. The Vigilance Cell inquiry

report states that, the school record of Subhash Vishwanath Parchande

and Satish Vishwanath Parchande was not found. However, the record

of the said persons was very much available with the concerned

Municipal school. The impugned order, being contrary to the documents

on record, needs to be interfered with and as the pre-Constitution era

document of the blood relative of the Petitioner shows the caste as

‘Mahadev Koli’, the Petitioner was entitled for validity certiicate

towards his claim. It is submitted that, the petition be allowed.

5.      It is submitted by the learned AGP that, since the Respondent

No.2-Committee found that the word 'Koli' was written in the dark ink

and the word 'Mahadev' was written in the light ink in respect of the

entry of a blood relative of the Petitioner, i.e., the cousin grandfather,

the said entry cannot form the basis to validate the Petitioner's claim.

The Vigilance Cell report found that the old entries in respect of blood

relatives of the Petitioner were rewritten and, therefore, rightly not

relied by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. As the impugned

order is passed on the basis of the documents on record, no fault can be

found with the same and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.      The genealogy submitted by the Petitioner’s father to the

Vigilance Committee is as under:




Gaikwad RD                       3 of 8
                                                     902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc




7.      There is no dispute in respect of the above genealogy. In support

of his claim, the Petitioner submitted several documents of his blood

relatives. The oldest document relied upon by the Petitioner is the birth

entry dated 3rd August 1934 of Uddhav Vishwanath Yadu Parchande,

who is the cousin grandfather of the Petitioner. The said entry is from

the record of the Pandharpur Nagar Parishad. The impugned order

shows that the Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry in respect of the

documents submitted by the Petitioner and noted that the said entry of



Gaikwad RD                       4 of 8
                                                            902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


1934 was rewritten. The Vigilance Oicer in his report has stated that

in the said entry, the word "Mahadev" was seen in the light ink and the

word "Koli" was seen in dark ink. The remarks of the Vigilance Cell are

reproduced in the impugned order. However, the impugned order

nowhere shows the consideration of the said entry by the Respondent

No. 2-Scrutiny Committee. There is nothing to show that the said entry

dated 3rd August 1934 was sent for the opinion of the expert, so as to

support the indings of the Vigilance Cell as noted above. In Manthan

Vikas Adhatrao (supra), which was the writ petition against the

invalidation of the tribe claim, it is observed that:

        “In Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra,2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court
        held that interpolation or fabrication in public records cannot be
        inferred on mere conjecture or visual impression as to ink,
        handwriting, or the age and condition of the register. In the present
        case, the doubts entertained by the Committee regarding old records
        are unsupported by expert material and rest on no legally acceptable
        foundation. Such suspicion, by itself, was wholly insuicient to
        dislodge certiied copies of public documents.”
8.       It was expected from the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to

deal with the said document, which was of a pre-Constitution era. There

is no ining by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee on the said

document. The copy of the extract of the said entry is in the ile of the

Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee. On close scrutiny of the said

entry, the inding of the Vigilance Cell that the said entry was rewritten
2    2010 (1) ALL MR 957 (SC).


Gaikwad RD                           5 of 8
                                                      902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


is liable to be rejected as nothing of that sort is seen. In absence of any

expert’s opinion, the remarks of the Scrutiny Committee that the word

"Mahadev" is written in light ink and the word "Koli" is written in dark

ink will be insuicient to support the impugned order. The said entry is

from the birth register of Pandharpur Municipality. The copy of the

extract of the said register clearly shows that the entries are written in

serial numbers.    The caste of Uddhav Vishwanath Yadu Parchande,

whose name is shown in the genealogy, is clearly mentioned as

‘Mahadev Koli’ and the date of birth is mentioned as 3 rd August 1934.

The said entry of pre-Constitution era has more probative value. The

Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee failed to consider the said entry

having more probative value. For the aforesaid reasons, the said entry

supports the Petitioner’s claim towards the ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled

tribe and there is no reason to discard the said entry.

9.      The impugned order shows that, the other documents relied upon

by the Petitioner were of post-Constitution era. The impugned order

shows that, the vigilance inquiry found one entry No.1053 dated 18 th

October 1941 in the name of Yashodabai c/o Vishwanath Yadu

Parchande Koli, from the register of the Pandharpur Nagar Parishad,

wherein the caste is mentioned as ‘Koli’ and according to the Vigilance

Cell, the relation with the Petitioner was cousin grandfather. The name

‘Yashodabai’ is not seen in the genealogy. According to the Petitioner,


Gaikwad RD                       6 of 8
                                                      902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


the said ‘Yashodabai’ is not related to him in any manner. Thus, the said

entry of 1941 will not come in the way of the Petitioner to dislodge his

claim.

10.      The other reasons given by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny

Committee for invalidating the Petitioner’s tribe claim is that, the

Petitioner failed to prove the ainity towards the ‘Koli Mahadev’

scheduled tribe and the ancestors of the Petitioner were the resident of

Pandharpur in Solapur District, which was not the region or area, where

the ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe was found. Both the said reasons are

unsustainable for the reason that, it is settled position in law in view of

the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Adiwasi Thakur

Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 3

wherein it is observed that ainity test is not the litmus test. Due to

removal of area restrictions by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force vide

Government Notiication dated 8th September 1976, the said reason

that the people from the ‘Koli Mahadev’ tribe were not the ordinary

resident of District Solapur, falls down.

11.      We would have considered to remand back the matter to the

Scrutiny Committee.      However, with the clear document of pre-

Constitution era of cousin grandfather of the Petitioner showing the

3   AIR 2023 SC 1657.


Gaikwad RD                        7 of 8
                                                                               902-WP-4340-2026-J.doc


                        caste as Koli Mahadev and as the Petitioner is required to submit the

                        Caste Validity Certiicate for his educational purpose today, we allow

                        the petition and proceed to pass the following order:

                                                           ORDER

                              (i)    The impugned order dated 28th August 2026 passed by

                                     Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set

                                     aside.

                              (ii)   The Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue

                                     the Validity Certiicate to the Petitioner as belonging to the

                                     ‘Koli Mahadev’ scheduled tribe by 7th September 2026 before

                                     2:00 p.m.

                              (iii) The record be handed over to the learned AGP for returning it

                                     to Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee.

                              (iv) The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.



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

           Digitally
           signed by
           RAJU
RAJU       DATTATRAYA
DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD    Date:
           2026.09.04
           20:03:07
           +0530




                        Gaikwad RD                         8 of 8