VILAS DNYANU BHATversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPT. AND ORS.

                      LSP                                                     50 wp 7160.16.doc


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         Writ Petition No.7160 of 2015

                      Vilas Dnyanu Bhat
                      Mulund (E), Mumbai-81.                         …     Petitoner

                            V/s.

                      1. State of Maharashtra
                         Through its Secretary
                         Tribal Development Department

                      2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
                         Scrutiny Committee,
                         Pune Division, Pune.

                      3. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
                         Maharashtra Police L.A. III,
                          Worli, Mumbai 400 030.

                      4. Addl. Commissioner of Police
                         East Regional Division,
                          Chembur, Mumbai                            …     Respondents.


                      Mrs. Priyanka Shaw i/b. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner.

                      Mr. N.C.Walimbe, Addl.G.P. a/w. Smt. P.M.J. Deshpande, GP for the
                      State.

                                                CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &
                                                        S.M. MODAK, JJ.
         Digitally
         signed by

LATA
SUNIL
         LATA
         SUNIL
         PANJWANI
                                               DATED : 27th February 2026
PANJWANI Date:
         2026.03.07
         16:54:40
         +0530




                                                                                   1/5
LSP                                                         50 wp 7160.16.doc


P.C. : (Per S.M.Modak, J)

1.     Heard    Mr.    Mendadkar,      learned    counsel      for       the
petitioner/retired PSI and Mr. Walimbe, learned Additional
Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2.     On the basis of tribe reservation as Thakar Scheduled Tribe,
the petitioner got employment in Home Department of State of
Maharashtra. He was appointed by the Commissioner of Police,
Mumbai on the post of Police Constable in the year 1977 and he
retired on 31st May 2011 from the post of Police Sub-Inspector.
During his service his tribe certificate was sent for verification. The
Committee at Thane has not accepted his tribe claim and refused to
issue validity certificate as per the decision dated 30 th January 2010.
He was holding a tribe certificate issued by Tahsildar, Khanapur
dated 29th October 1979.

3.     After the decision of the Committee he filed present petition
and he was protected by the interim order of this Court. He retired.

4.     With the assistance of both the sides, we have gone through
the decision of the Committee. The Committee predominantly
refused to accept the tribe claim for following reasons:
(i)    There are inconsistent documents.
(ii)   The petitioner could not overcome the affinity test and
(iii) The petitioner does not hail from the area earmarked for

                                                               2/5
LSP                                                               50 wp 7160.16.doc


         Thakar tribe (produced at Page-27)
(iv) The validities relied upon by the petitioner were not
         accepted by observing ‘the tribe claim has to be proved
         independently.’

5.       It is true the Committee has referred to 3 validity certificates
issued to two daughters and one son of the petitioner, however, the
Committee refused to act upon it for the reason the petitioner has to
prove the claim independently. Committee referred to some of the
decisions. About the documents there is reference in Para No.3 of
the impugned order. The documents relate to relatives of the
petitioner pertaining to birth, death and school record. It is true
some of them are pre-constitutional documents. It is true in all these
documents the tribe is not mentioned as Thakar but somewhere it is
mentioned as Hindu/Bhat.

6.       It is a settled law that affinity test is not a litmus test and it can
be adhered to only when Committee finds the documents
insufficient. It is very well true that the area restriction no more
remains as a consideration for dealing with the validity claim. It is
already removed. A claimant may belong to any region and need not
be restricted to a particular region. This was considered by Division
Bench of this Court in a case of Motilal S/o. Namdeo Pawar v/s.
Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and others 1

1    Writ Petition No. 7/2014

                                                                     3/5
LSP                                                       50 wp 7160.16.doc


in the order dated 22nd December 2017. The area restriction was
removed as per the Amendment No.108/1976 enacted on 18th
September 1976. The Committee was wrong in accepting it as a
ground.

7.       So far as 3 validities are concerned, they were issued by the
Committee and they pertain to the children of the petitioner. It is
not the case of the respondents that these validity certificates are
cancelled. It is even not the case that show-cause notices are issued
to 3 children. The Committee must have gone through the
documents relied upon by those 3 children. How a caste of children
may be different from the caste of father. If this is allowed, it will
create anomalous situation.

8.       Even though it may be true that certain documents relied upon
by the Committee refers the caste as Bhat (and not Thakar). Be that
as it may, we are giving more weightage to the 3 validities granted to
the 3 children. As held by this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay
Nichale vs. District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commitee, Akola2 and
by Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharasthra3, the validities issued to
close blood relatives need to be given due weightage. The
respondents have not pleaded a case that vigilance was not
conducted at that time. So we are inclined to allow the petition.

2    2010(6) Mh.LJ 401
3    2023 SCC Online SC 326

                                                             4/5
LSP                                                        50 wp 7160.16.doc


Hence, the following order:
                               ORDER

(1)     The Writ Petition is allowed.

(2)    The impugned order dated 30th January 2010 passed by the
        respondent No.2 – Committee is quashed and set aside.

(3)    The respondent No.2 – Committee is directed to issue tribe
        validity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Thakar
        Scheduled Tribe within a period of six weeks from the
        date of communication of the order.

(4) The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits.



      (S.M. MODAK, J.)                        (M.S.KARNIK, J.)




                                                                5/5