JAY KAILAS THAKUR MINOR THR GUARDIAN FATHER KAILAS UTTAM THAKURversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ITS SECRETARY AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:40207-DB


                                               1              wp 9311-2026.odt



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9311 OF 2026

                        Jay s/o Kailas Thakur
                        Age : 17 years (Minor), Occu. Student,
                        U/g of father – Viz.,
                        Kailas s/o Uttam Thakur,
                        Age : 49 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
                        R/o. Koli Galli, Parola,
                        Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon                        .. Petitioner

                             Versus

                 1.     The State of Maharashtra
                        Department of Tribal Development,
                        Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
                        Through its Secreatary.

                 2.     The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
                        Scrutiny Committee, Dhule Division,
                        Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule
                        Through its Member Secretary                     .. Respondents

                 Mr. Sushant C. Yeramwar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
                 Mr. P. S. Patil, AGP for Respondent.1 & 2.

                                         CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND
                                                 JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

                 Date on which reserved for order : 14th August, 2026.

                 Date on which order pronounced : 03rd September, 2026.

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

                 1.     The petitioner, aggrieved by impugned judgment and order

                 passed by the respondent No. 2 - committee dated 20.07.2026
                               2             wp 9311-2026.odt


thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging

to     Thakur,       Scheduled       Tribe      in        case    No.

14/499/Edu/082025/180125, has approached this Court. It is

further prayed to hold and declare that the petitioner belongs to

Thakur, Scheduled Tribe and further direction to the committee to

issue certificate of validity in favour of the petitioner as belonging

to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe.


2.    Heard learned advocate Mr. Yeramwar for the petitioner and

learned A.G.P. Mr. Patil for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. By consent of

the parties taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.


3.    It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner happens to

be a person belonging to Thakur community, a Scheduled Tribe.

He obtained the certificate as belonging to Hindu Thakur from the

learned S.D.O., Erandol and submitted proposal for validation

before the committee. However, the committee held that the

petitioner failed to prove his tribe status on the basis of contra

entries showing the caste to be ‘Ghra. Kshabhat’ of the grand uncle

i.e. Laxman Shankar and ‘Bramhabhat’ of great grand uncle i.e.

Zipru Shenpadu Thakur from the school. Those entries are taken

in the year 1896 and on 10.08.1925 showing that they belong to
                                3              wp 9311-2026.odt


open category. Further it is held that in 1896 his grand uncle,

Laxman Shankar is shown as ‘Ghra Kshabhat’. In the case of Zipru

Shenpadu Thakur, great grand uncle is shown to be Thakur

(Bramhabhat). These entries are taken to be against each other. So

far as affinity test is concerned, it is held that the petitioner failed

in affinity test. So far as validities in the names of relatives, it is

held that the said validities are granted wherein the validity

holders had approached the committee by suppressing material

facts. The committee held against the petitioner. Therefore, the

petitioner has approached this Court.


4.    Learned    advocate     Mr.   Yeramwar      for    the      petitioner

vehemently argued that the petitioner has placed entire material

before the committee which is sufficient to prove the claim of the

petitioner. The petitioner has produced the school record of 1915

of Shankar Shenpadu, great grandfather of the petitioner whose

caste is shown to be Thakur. However, this vital entry is not

considered properly by the committee. The entry is of the year

1915, the same being of pre-constitutional era has a great

probative value. The petitioner has shown his genealogy in the

case of one Pawan Thakur. The validity was granted in his favour
                              4              wp 9311-2026.odt


who happened to be third cousin of the petitioner, still the said is

not considered.

.     As regards the observations by the committee, he submits

that, merely because some entries of distant relatives are showing

caste as ‘Ghra. Kshabhat’ and ‘Bramhabhat’ will not take away the

caste status of the great grandfather of the petitioner. The entry as

‘Ghra. Kshabhat’ and Thakur (Bramhabhat) are not properly

taken. So far as father’s caste in the school record is Hindu Thakur,

Backward (ekxk) cannot be said to be contra entry. The said entry is

of 1981 which is consistent with the entry of his great grandfather.

The entry in the name of Uttam Shankar Thakur i.e. grandfather

that was taken in the year 1942 in the school also shows the caste

as Hindu Thakur. He thus submits that the observations of the

committee are not correct. So far as Pawan Rajesh Thakur, the

committee has wrongly observed that in his case he had

suppressed certain documents i.e. old contra entries. There is no

material to support the finding about suppression recorded by the

committee.


5.    He relied upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court

in the case of Veena Ashok Godse @ Veena Hemant Sonawane Vs.
                                           5      wp 9311-2026.odt


State of Maharashtra and Ors1. He further relies upon the

judgments in the cases of (i) Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur Vs.

The State of Maharashtra And Others 2 with other connected

petitions and (ii) Vaibhavi d/o Vasant Suryavanshi Vs. State of

Maharashtra And Another3.


6.       The learned A.G.P. Mr. Patil for respondents vehemently

opposes the petition. He submits that so called extract of the

school record in respect of Shankar Shenpadu is without stamp of

the school or the Headmaster, therefore, his school leaving

certificate dated 12.05.2012 also cannot be believed. The

vigilance cell had conducted inquiry wherein, it is observed that in

the case of Pawan Rajesh Thakur the record was suppressed of the

contra entries. It is observed that the entries relied upon by the

petitioner are fabricated which is shown to be of pre-

independence era. His grand uncle, Laxman Shankar is shown to

be ‘Ghra. Kshabhat’. So far as Shankar Shenpadu i.e. great

grandfather could not be verified as the general register of the

school is in torned condition. So far as great grand uncle namely

Zipru Shenpadu is shown to be Thakur Bhramhabhat. So far as


1    Civil Appeal No. 19968 of 2017.
2    W. P. No. 7472 of 2021 (Aurangabad Bench).
3    W. P. No. 6564 of 2026 (Aurangabad Bench).
                               6               wp 9311-2026.odt


grandfather Uttam Shankar is concerned, the entry in the caste

column is shown to be Hindu Thakur in the school register. So far

as other entries are concerned, those are after independence. It

was thus observed that there are contra entries. The learned A.G.P.

further submits that the committee has thus rightly observed that

the petitioner has failed to prove his case.


7.    In the case of Veena Ashok Godse (supra), the Hon’ble Apex

Court was dealing with the case wherein the claimant had relied

upon the leaving certificate issued by Zilla Parishad, Primary

School of the year 1922 in the name of great grandfather whose

caste was shown to be Hindu Wani. She had also relied upon the

certificate issued by the authorities in respect of her cousin uncle,

grandfather and cousin grandfather wherein, the caste was

recorded as Wani. However, the committee found that in the case

of grandfather of the claimant in the year 1944 got his caste

mentioned as “Kulwant Wani” and thereafter father and brothers

of the appellant also mentioned their caste as “Kulwant Wani”. It

was taken that it does not mean that the appellant would become

member of the “Kulwant Wani” caste. It was observed that when

they are the springs of her great grandfather whose caste was

recorded only as Hindu Wani in the year 1922 that would prevail.
                             7             wp 9311-2026.odt


The Court relied upon the judgment in the case of Anand Vs.

Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims And

Others, (2012) 1 SCC 113.


8.    In the case of Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur (supra), in the

said case also the father and one uncle’s record in the school was

showing caste as Thakur in the birth and death register. However,

in the school record of one uncle the caste was written as

‘Bramhabhat’ whereas in the cases of aunts the school record of

the year 1937 and 1939 again the caste was shown to be Thakur.

This Court considering the judgment in the case of Veena Ashok

Godse (supra) and other judgments held that the petitioner was

entitled to get validity and in that view the petition was allowed

by setting aside the judgment of the scrutiny committee.


9.    In the case of Vaibhavi d/o Vasant Suryavanshi (supra), this

Court considered that grandfather of the petitioner therein was

shown to be belonging to Hindu Thakur in the school record. The

said entry was of the year 1946 and in that view allowed the

petition.


10.   The learned A.G.P. has produced the file of the petitioner

from the committee. It is already shown that Laxman Shankar was
                              8            wp 9311-2026.odt


shown to be ‘Ghra. Kshabhat’ in the school record. So far as case

of Zipru Shenpadu who was also shown as ‘Bramhabhat’, this

Court has seen the record. From the record, a copy of general

register No. 1 is seen wherein Laxman Shankar is shown as ‘Ghra.

Kshabhat’. So far as Zipru Shenpadu the caste is shown to be

Thakur (Bramhabhat). An affidavit of Pawan shows that the

present applicant is third cousin of the petitioner. The Headmaster

from the school where Shankar Shenpadu and Zipru Shenpadu

were admitted shows that, it is difficult to ascertain from the

register the entries of Shankar Shenpadu Thakur and Zipru

Shenpadu Thakur. Though Shankar Shenpadu Thakur is shown to

be of Thakur community, the said is without stamp of the person

issuing the certificate below the signature. Even the name and

designation of person is not mentioned. Therefore, the said cannot

be believed.


11.   In the present case, this Court finds that, when great

grandfather was clearly shown to be of Thakur tribe in the year

1915 that would be a document of much importance. Merely

because his brother had shown some other caste will not take

away the caste status of the great grandfather. The contra entries

are not of post-constitution era, but are of the pre-constitutional
                                  9             wp 9311-2026.odt


era itself. When such is the case and when great grandfather who

is directly in lineage with the petitioner is shown to be Thakur, the

entries as ‘Bramhabhat’ and ‘Ghra. Kshabhat’ of other relatives

need not be given much importance. There is nothing on record to

show that any of the entries are fabricated or are bogus or false.

The only objection of the learned A.G.P. is that the copy of the

school record of Shankar Shenpadu Thakur is not signed and

there is no stamp of the school. However, this Court finds force in

the submission of the petitioner in rejoinder that the committee

has not doubted this document. Now it is not open to doubt the

said document.


12.      Considering all above, this Court finds that, a case is made

out to allow the writ petition.


13.      The writ petition stands allowed in terms of prayer clauses

(B) and (C).


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



( JITENDRA JAIN, J.)                          ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

P.S.B.