Bombay High Court

DATTA GANGARAM SUBANWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court held that the petitioner’s claim merits fresh consideration and set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order, remanding the case for a new decision.

Summary

The petitioner, Datta Gangaram Subanwad, challenged the Scrutiny Committee’s order that rejected his claim of belonging to the Scheduled Tribe Koli Mahadev on the ground of insufficient pre‑independence documentary evidence. The petitioner argued that the lack of older records was due to his being the first generation to receive formal education and later produced a sale deed dated 15‑05‑1948 showing his grandfather’s caste as Mahadev Koli. The State contended that the petitioner failed to explain why the document was not produced earlier and that the affinity test was not satisfied. The Court noted that the affinity test is merely corroborative and that the newly discovered sale deed could strengthen the claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the Scrutiny Committee’s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision, directing the Committee to consider the sale deed and other evidence within six months.

Issues considered

Whether the Scrutiny Committee erred in rejecting the petitioner’s Scheduled Tribe claim due to lack of pre‑independence documents.
Whether the petitioner may be permitted to introduce a newly discovered sale deed as evidence of tribal status.
Whether the failure to satisfy the affinity test is fatal to the claim.
Whether the order of the Scrutiny Committee should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Subjects

Scheduled Tribe
tribe claim
Scrutiny Committee
affinity test
remand
sale deed
Koli Mahadev
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37433-DB




                                               (1)                      wp7514.24


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           960 WRIT PETITION NO. 7514 OF 2024

                             DATTA GANGARAM SUBANWAD
                                      VERSUS
            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

           Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2- State.
           Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                           CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                   JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                           DATE  : 18.08.2026

           PC :-

           01.          Heard Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, learned Advocate for the petitioner,

           Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr.

           M.N. Navandar, learned Advocate for respondent No.3.



           02.          The petitioner has approached this Court challenging a

           judgment and order passed by respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee

           dated 02.07.2024, invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging

           to Scheduled Tribe – Koli Mahadev.         While deciding the claim, the

           Member of the Scrutiny Committee observed that the petitioner has

           failed to prove a tribe claim. The entries showing tribe as Mahadev Koli

           are of recent origin. The first entry is of 1987 in respect of sisters of the
                                    (2)                     wp7514.24


petitioner, which appears in school leaving certificate.      There is no

document of pre-independence era on record supporting claim of the

petitioner.   It is further observed that some of the relatives of the

petitioner are shown to be Koli in school record. The Scrutiny Committee

considered judgment in the case of Shivaji Shankar Baikar Vs. State

of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 9321 of 2016.             On all these

counts, the claim of the petitioner is refused.



03.           Learned Advocate Mr. Yeramwar for the petitioner vehemently

argued that the petitioner is from the first generation taking education in

the near relatives.   Therefore, there are no entries or school record in

respect of father, grandfather etc. The Scrutiny Committee though has

given reason that in the caste column of relatives of the petitioner caste

is shown to be “Koli”, however, no any relation is shown with them. He

submits that the relation shown with the petitioner is only as relative

without specifying as to how they are related to the petitioner. He thus

submits that those entries cannot be considered as contra entries.      In

genealogy, names of all those persons whose caste is only shown as

“Koli” are not shown.



04.           Learned Advocate further argued that though when the claim
                                   (3)                       wp7514.24


was pending before the Scrutiny Committee, he could not get any

document of pre-independence era.        After the decision he again took

rigorous search of the record. In his attempt he found one document i.e.

sale-deed executed by one Sayana s/o. Rama Bedadewad in favour of

Hulappa s/o. Ramanna Subanwad, who happens to be grand father of the

petitioner, wherein caste of said Hulappa is shown as Mahadev Koli. He

thus submits that if this document is considered, it would strongly

support the case of the petitioner. For that purpose one chance needs to

be given to prove the document before the Scrutiny Committee. He thus

submits that at least a case is made out to remand the matter back to

the Committee.



05.        Learned AGP vehemently opposes this petition. He submits

that there is no proper reason coming before this Court as to why the

petitioner could not produce documents before the Scrutiny Committee.

He, however, accepts that there are no contra entries found.       He also

accepts that the persons who are shown to be belonging to “Koli” are

only shown to be relatives without specific and exact relation with the

petitioner. He could not give any reason as to why still the entries were

not considered by the Scrutiny Committee.        He submits that in the

affinity test the petitioner failed to prove his affinity.    He prays for
                                    (4)                      wp7514.24


dismissal of the petition.



06.         From looking to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee,

it is seen that in the caste column in the cases of relatives of the

petitioner, caste is shown as “Mahadev Koli”.       Though entries are of

recent origin, still there is no contra entry found. Where specific relation

is shown with the petitioner, the entries were shown as “Koli Mahadev”.

Only “Koli” are in respect of the persons, where relation with the

petitioner is not mentioned. This Court thus has doubt whether they are

really related to the petitioner. So far as affinity test is concerned, it is

already held in the case of Anand Katote Vs. Committee, 2011 (6)

Mh.L.J.(SC) 919 and Mah. Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Sanrakshan

Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2505 of

2022 dated 24.03.2023 that affinity test is only corroborative test. In

the present case, thus, it is seen that only adverse factor is affinity test.

If this Court gives chance to the petitioner to prove sale-deed dated

15.05.1948 (16 Tir 1360 fasli) and if the same is proved by the

petitioner, the petitioner’s claim may become stronger.



07.         Considering the above, this Court finds that a case is made

out to remand this matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh
                                           (5)                   wp7514.24


decision. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is allowed.               The

judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by the Scrutiny Committee

stands set aside.            The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny

Committee for fresh decision. The Scrutiny Committee to look into the

aspect of the sale-deed and other documents. It is thereafter the

Scrutiny Committee to conclude the proceeding within six months from

today.



08.                No adverse action shall be taken by respondent No.3 against

the petitioner for a period of six months from today or till the Scrutiny

Committee decides tribe claim of the petitioner, whichever is earlier.



09.                It is made clear that all the observations made in this order

are only prima facie in nature.            The Scrutiny Committee to arrive at

conclusion independently without being influenced by the observations.



10.                This Writ petition stands disposed off.




         [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                     [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


snk/2026/Aug26/wp7514.24

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…