High Court
Legal Reasoning
5561.23wp etc(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5561 OF 2023Vandana D/o Mansaram Koli,Age: 30 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Plot No.10, Lonkheda Bypass, Shahada, Tq. Shahada,Dist. Nandurbar….PETITIONERVERSUS1.The Sate of Maharashtra,Through : The Secretary,Department of Tribal Development,Mantralaya, Extension Building,Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Mumbai – 400 0322.The Committee for verification ofScheduled Tribe Claims, Nandurbar,Milk Chilling Plant Building,Near RTO, Sakri Road,Nandurbar 425 4123.Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar ….RESPONDENTSAND WRIT PETITION NO.5554 OF 2023Manisha D/o Mansaram Koli,Age: 30 years, Occu: Service,R/o. Plot No.10, Lonkheda Bypass, Shahada, Tq. Shahada,Dist. Nandurbar….PETITIONERVERSUS 5561.23wp etc(2) 1.The Sate of Maharashtra,Through : The Secretary,Department of Tribal Development,Mantralaya, Extension Building,Madam Kama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk,Mumbai – 400 0322.The Committee for verification ofScheduled Tribe Claims, Nandurbar,Milk Chilling Plant Building,Near RTO, Sakri Road,Nandurbar 425 4123.Chief Agriculture Officer,Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr Mohanish V. Thorat , Advocate for petitioners in both petitionsMr S. R. Wakale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2/State CORAM : MANGESH S. PATILAND PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ. DATE : 10th March, 2025JUDGMENT (PER : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the parties.2.By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia,the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24/04/2023,passed by respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification
Decision
5561.23wp etc(3) Committee, invalidating their claim for ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribein a proceeding under Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), NomadicTribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act,2000/Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001. The impugned order is acommon order in the matters of petitioners who are real sisters. Thetribe claim of the petitioners is invalidated by the committeeconcluding that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim onthe basis of documentary evidence as well as on account of failure toprove affinity with ‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe.3.The committee has observed that the documents ofpre-independence era relied upon by the petitioners show the entry ofcaste as ‘Koli Dhor’, which is contrary to the claim for ‘Tokre Koli’and on this count, the documents are discarded. Referring to thedocuments of the year 1913 and 1946, the committee has concludedthat these documents do not establish the petitioner’s tribe as ‘TokreKoli’ and has invalidated the claim directing initiation of action underthe provisions of Sections 10 and 11 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIIIof 2001. 5561.23wp etc(4) 4.Mr M. V. Thorat, learned counsel for the petitioners inboth the matters vehemently submits that the committee has adoptederroneous approach in deciding the tribe claim. He submits that thedocument in the nature of birth extract of the petitioner’s greatgrandfather Ragha Daga Sampat, dated 08/06/1913 showing the casteas ‘Koli Dhor’ and another document of school record of petitioner’sgrandfather Sitaram Ragha, dated 13/06/1946 showing the caste as‘Koli Dhor Hindu’, were sufficient to establish the social status of thepetitioner as scheduled tribe since ‘Tokre Koli’ and ‘Koli Dhor’ cannotbe considered to be contrary entries. He submits that these are theoldest documents carrying high probative value and cannot be brushedaside by labelling them as contrary entries. In support of hissubmissions, he relies upon the judgment dated 20/07/2024 deliveredby this Court in Writ Petition No.1209/2022 in the matter ofSamridhhi Yogesh Savale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.5.Per contra, Mr S. R. Wakale, learned A.G.P. forrespondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the petitions vehemently submits thatthe documents showing entries as ‘Koli Dhor’ are inconsistent with thetribe claim for ‘Tokre Koli’ and on these submissions, justifies theimpugned order. He submits that the entry of caste has to be read as it 5561.23wp etc(5) is and in absence of any pre-independence era documents showing thecaste as ‘Tokre Koli’, the petitioners’ claim is rightly invalidated. 6.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.7.It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have relied upondocuments of the year 1913 and 1946 with respect to their greatgrandfather and grandfather which shows the entry as ‘Koli Dhor’.While considering these documents, the committee has inferred thatthe documents of ‘Koli Dhor’ are contrary to the claim and therefore,in absence of any other documents of pre-independence era, it hasinvalidated the petitioners’ claim. It is worthwhile to mention here thata similar issue fell for consideration of this bench in the matter ofNilesh Gulab Sonawane and another Vs. State of Maharashtra andothers (Writ Petition No.9654/2019 decided on 18/10/2023), whichwas followed in the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale (supra) andthis Court has held that the entries of ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ arementioned in the same entry i.e. Entry No.28 of the Constitution(Schedule Tribes) Order, 1950 and cannot be treated as inconsistententries. In these judgments, it is held that since the Legislature in itswisdom has put ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ in the same entry, the 5561.23wp etc(6) claim of ‘Tokre Koli’ cannot be treated as inconsistent with ‘KoliDhor’.8.In the light of above, the document of birth extract ofpetitioner’s great grandfather dated 08/06/1913 showing the caste as‘Koli Dhor’ cannot be discarded as document inconsistent to the tribeclaim. This is the oldest document having high probative value andought to have been made the basis to decide the petitioner’s tribeclaim. As such, the only reason put forth by the committee indiscarding the documents of 1913 and 1946 is unsustainable. Evenconsidering the documents of ‘Koli Dhor’, the petitioner’s social statusis maintained as scheduled tribe since the entry of ‘Tokre Koli’ and‘Koli Dhor’ fall in the same entry i.e. Entry No.28 and thus, thepetitioners’ claim for scheduled tribe sustains.9.In view of the above, we are of the considered opinionthat the impugned order passed by the scrutiny committee isunsustainable and it is liable to be quashed and set aside. Thepetitioners are entitled for validation of their claim for ‘Tokre Koli’scheduled tribe. Hence, we pass the following order :-(a)The writ petitions are allowed. 5561.23wp etc(7) (b)The impugned order dated 24/04/2023, passed byrespondent No.2/scrutiny committee, is quashed and set aside.(c)Respondent/scrutiny committee is directed to immediatelyissue validity certificates to the petitioners of belonging to the‘Tokre Koli’ Scheduled Tribe in a prescribed format.(d)The petitioners shall not claim any equities. 10.Rule is made absolute in above terms.(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)sjk