High Court · 2023
Facts
[1] WP / 1209 / 2022IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1209 OF 2022ANDCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6755 OF 2024 Samriddhi Yogesh SavaleAge : 19 years, Occu. Student,R/o. Shelti, Tq. Shahada,Dist. Nandurbar.. Petitioner / Applicant Versus1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 322) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Through its Deputy Director (R)3) The Commissioner & Competent Authority, State CET Cell, Maharashtra State, Mumbai – 1 8th Floor, New Exelsior Building, AK Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 1 (Collector of Admission Process).. Respondents…Advocate for petitioner : Mr. Mohanish V. Thorat AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. Sarang P. JoshiAdvocate for the respondent no. 3 : Mr. Shaikh Wasif h/f. Mr. M.D. NarwadkarRespondent no. 4 served - absent... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJ.RESERVED ON : 09 JULY 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 20 JULY 2024JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent ofboth the sides, the petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.
Legal Reasoning
[2] WP / 1209 / 20222.In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,read with section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001(hereinafter ‘the Act’), the petitioner is taking an exception to thejudgment and order passed by respondent no. 2 – scheduled tribecertificate scrutiny committee (hereinafter ‘the committee’), whereby ithas refused to validate her ‘Tokre Koli’ scheduled tribe certificate anddirected it to be confiscated and cancelled, in a proceeding under thatAct. 3.Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that there arepre-constitutional school record and birth and death record maintained inthe ordinary course, describing the petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Dhor Koli’or ‘Tokre Koli’. He would submit that though ‘Dhor Koli’ and ‘Tokre Koli’sound different, they are covered by the same entry at serial no.28 of thePresidential Order. He would submit that even in the governmentresolution dated 24-04-1985 while laying down guidelines, Tribal WelfareDepartment of the state had expressly observed that ‘Dhor Koli’ was atthe lowest rung and the persons belonging to it were treated asuntouchables and expressly declaring this category of community beingknown as ‘Dhor Koli’, ‘Tokre Koli’, ‘Kolcha’ and ‘Kolgha’. Consequently,all these entries find place at serial number 28. He would submit thatappreciating such state-of-affairs, even this Court in the matter of NileshGulab Sonawane and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others(writ petition no. 9654 of 2019 decided on 18-10-2023) has expressly [3] WP / 1209 / 2022concluded that the entries as ‘Koli Dhor’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ could not be readas contrary or inconsistent entries.4.Learned advocate would further submit that there is pre-constitutional school record and birth and death record consistentlydescribing the petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Koli Dhor’ or ‘Dhor Koli’ or‘Tokre Koli’. Though there were few other entries of some relativesreferred to by the committee which are also pre-constitutional, describingsome of the ancestors as ‘Koli’, those are very few and could notoutweigh the favourable record which was in abundance. He wouldsubmit that when there are several pre-constitutional entries, the decisionought to have been based only by analyzing and appreciating such pre-constitutional record which would have a greater probative value but thecommittee has chosen to rely upon only contrary record of the post-constitutional period. Petitioner’s forefathers cannot be attributed withhaving any oblique intention while mentioning their caste even before theconstitutional order providing reservation has seen the light of the day.5.Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that eventhe committee has referred to the oldest record of the year 1906 whenpetitioner’s great grandfather was admitted to a school and has refusedto recognize this because the committee has treated that entry as ‘DhorKoli’ as being inconsistent with the claim of ‘Tokre Koli’. He would submitthat even the committee has refused to rely upon this on the opinion ofthe headmaster, as the school register extract did not tally with any of the
Decision
[4] WP / 1209 / 2022school register / record. However, the committee has convenientlyoverlooked even the older record of great great grandfather Ragho Ratanin the birth and death record maintained in Form no. 14 by the villagepanchayat regarding his birth date as 11-10-1905 describing him as ‘KoliDhor’. When the petitioner had expressly referred to this old record in herreply to the vigilance report, it was imperative for the committee to havegone through such old village panchayat record of the earliest point oftime but it has refused to do so.6.Learned advocate would also submit that even thecommittee has not considered another pre-constitutional record of 1923wherein petitioner’s grandfather Bhila Ragho Savle was described as‘Tokre Koli’ in the school record and the headmaster had expresslycertified that it was tallying with the school register and there was noover-writing. He would, therefore, submit that the committee has notappreciated the evidence in the proper perspective and has reached aperverse and arbitrary conclusion.7.Learned advocate would then submit that even the revenuerecord possessed by the petitioner’s family describing it to be regulatedby the provisions of section 36 and 36-A of the Maharashtra LandRevenue Code, 1966 which could have occurred only because thepetitioner’s ancestors were granted these lands as a watan, has beenoverlooked by the committee without any sound reason. He, therefore,prayed to allow the writ petition. [5] WP / 1209 / 20228.Learned AGP would support the impugned judgment andorder. He would submit that though the petitioner has been relying uponpre-constitutional record as mentioned by the committee, apart from thefact that some of those were ‘Koli’ or ‘Hindu Koli’, which is a specialbackward class and inconsistent with the claim of ‘Tokre Koli’, thecommittee found several interpolations and even the headmaster hadopined that the extracts of the school register produced / relied by thepetitioner was not tallying with any school record.9.He would further submit that the entries in the schedule haveto be read as it is and claim of the petitioner of ‘Tokre Koli’, is inconsistentwith the pre-constitutional record of ‘Koli Dhor’ or ‘Dhor Koli’. Even thepost-independence record of the petitioner’s blood relatives isinconsistent and describe them as ‘Koli’ or ‘Hindu Koli’. By virtue ofsection 8 of the Act, the burden to prove tribe claim rests on theclaimants. She had failed to substantiate the claim. The committee hadassigned sound reasons and taken a plausible view in rejecting theclaim.10.We have considered the rival submissions and perused thepapers.11.At the outset, it would be appropriate to appreciate thereasoning assigned by the committee by reproducing the chart in respectof the record of the petitioner’s ancestors. Though it is in one table, in [6] WP / 1209 / 2022our considered view, it would be appropriate that depending upon thereasoning assigned by the committee, it can be segregated in two parts;first chart describing the petitioner’s relatives as ‘Koli’ or ‘Hindu Koli’ andsecond describing them as ‘Koli Dhor’ or ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Hindu Tokre Koli’.It is apparent that the committee has discarded some of this record onthe ground that those are ‘Koli’ or ‘Hindu Koli’ and are inconsistent withthe petitioner’s claim of ‘Tokre Koli’. It has also mentioned that some ofsuch entries have been interpolated by inserting letter 'टो'. The tables asmentioned above, are as under :Sr.No.Name of DocumentName of person on thedocumentBlood relation with theapplicantCasterecordedDate ofAdmission / Registration 1Village Form No. 14Rama Kumbala KoliCousin Great GreatGrandfatherKoli04.01.19132Village Form No. 14-- Ragho RatanGreat GreatGrandfatherKoliJuly / 19223Village Form No. 14Chindhi Ragho RatanGreat GrandmotherKoli08.09.19284Village Form No. 14Mohan Ragho RatanCousin GreatGrandfatherKoliApril / 19355School RecordKu. Salunka Guman SavleCousin GrandmotherHindu Koli21.06.19556School RecordArastol Hilal SavleCousin GrandmotherHindu Koli26.06.19627School RecordBharat Hilal SavleCousin GrandfatherHindu Koli01.06.19648School RecordHira Bhila SavleGrandmotherHindu Koli02.06.19649School RecordBablibai Guman SavleCousin GrandmotherHindu Koli03.06.196510School RecordMeerabai Father MohanSavleCousin GrandmotherHindu Koli17.06.196511School RecordSarubai Bhila SavleGrandmotherHindu Koli06.06.196612School RecordPundlik Hilal SavleCousin GrandfatherHindu Koli29.06.196613School RecordKeval Bhila SavleCousin GrandfatherHindu Koli22.06.1974Sr.No.Name of DocumentName of person on thedocumentBlood relation with theapplicantCasterecordedDate ofAdmission / Registration 1School RecordRagho RatanGreat GreatGrandfatherDhor Koli10.06.19062School RecordBhila Ragho KoliGreat GrandfatherTokre Koli01.05.19233Village Form No. 14Ragho RatanGreat GreatGrandfatherKoli Dhor10.12.19254Village Form No. 14Bhila Ragho Ratan SavleGreat GrandfatherKoli Dhor10.01.19305Village Form No. 14Guman Budha Rama SavleCousin GreatGrandfatherKoli Dhor10.04.19306Village Form No. 14Ratan Kubla Savle (Kuber)Great Great GreatGrandfatherKoli Dhor07.01.19327Village Form No. 14Tapi Budha RamaGreat GrandmotherDhor KoliDecember / 19378Village Form No. 14Ragho RatanGreat GreatGrandfatherKoli Dhor07.01.19429School RecordMohan Ragho KoliCousin GreatGrandfatherHindu To.Koli03.08.194810Village Form No. 14Motiram Bhila RaghoGrandfatherKoli Dhor08.04.194811School RecordKu. Salunka Guman SavleCousin GrandmotherHindu To.Koli20.06.195512School RecordManjula Guman SavleCousin GrandmotherHindu To.Koli01.06.196113School RecordPandit Hilal SavleCousin GrandfatherHindu KoliTokre07.06.196314School RecordNanabhau Guman SavleCousin GrandfatherHindu To.Koli01.06.196615School RecordRanjatabai Motiram SavlePaternal AuntHindu TokreKoli25.06.1976 [7] WP / 1209 / 2022Sr.No.Name of DocumentName of person on thedocumentBlood relation with theapplicantCasterecordedDate ofAdmission / Registration 16School RecordManisha Motiram SavlePaternal AuntHindu TokreKoli03.10.197917School RecordYogesh Motiram Savle FatherHindu TokreKoli14.06.198418Colour photocopy ofService bookChhotulal alias NanabhauGuman Savle Cousin GrandfatherHindu To.Koli19.06.199119School RecordSamriddhi Yogesh Savle ApplicantHindu TokreKoli (S.T.)11.04.2009The committee has not expressly indicated as to which of these entriesare manipulated or interpolated. The observation of the committee isomnibus. It was not proper for the committee to analyze the evidence insuch serious matters, without being careful about expressly dealing witheach record which it believed to be interpolated or fabricated. 12.It, therefore, becomes imperative for us to understand theobservations of the committee in the context of the vigilance cell report.The vigilance cell report gives following description in a chart :Sr.No.NameBlood relation withcandidateAvailableEvidenceCasterecordedinevidenceYear ofevidenceRemark1234567I.Rama Kubla KoliGreat Great GrandfatherDeath record of village Form No. 14KoliDate of Death 04.01.1913--II.---- Ragho RatanCousin GrandfatherBirth record of village Form No. 14KoliDate of Birth July / 1922III.Chindhii Ragho RatanSister of CousinGrandfatherBirth record of village Form No. 14KoliDate of Birth08.09.1928---IV.Mohon Radhe RatanCousin GrandfatherDeath record of village Form No. 14KoliDate of Death April / 1935---V.Ragho RatanCousin Great GrandfatherAdmission Extract of General Register of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarDhor KoliBirth 10.06.1906The entry is in a loose page and thepage could tally with any of theschool registers. The handwritingon this page containing this entry isin a different ink and handwriting ascompared to the rest of the entriesin the school register.VI.Bhila Ragho Koli Cousin GrandfatherAdmission Extract of General Register of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarTokre KoliBirth01.05.1923The entry is in a loose page and thepage could tally with any of theschool registers. The handwritingon this page containing this entry isin a different ink and handwriting ascompared to the rest of the entriesin the school register. [8] WP / 1209 / 2022VII.Mohan Ragho KoliCousin GrandfatherAdmission Extract of General Register no. 63, book no.2 of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu To. Koli03.08.19482nd standardLetter 'टो' in a different ink andhandwriting has been inserted in theentry “Hindu Tokre Koli”.VIII.Ku. Salunka Guman SavlePaternal AuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 244, book no. 2 of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli21.06.19551st Standard---IX.Ku. Salunka Guman SavlePaternal AuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 78, book no.3 of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu To. Koli20.06.19551st Standard---X.Arastol Hilal SavleCousin PaternalAuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 371, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli26.06.19621st Standard---XI.Pandit Hilal SavleCousin UncleAdmission Extract of General Register no. 398, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli Tokre07.06.19631st StandardWord ‘Tokre’ has been inserted indifferent handwriting after the words‘Hindu Koli’.Sr.No.NameBlood relation withcandidateAvailableEvidenceCasterecordedinevidenceYear ofevidenceRemarkXII.Keval Bila SavleCousin PaternalAuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 417, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Hindu KoliSchool leaving date 22.06.1974--- [9] WP / 1209 / 2022Sr.No.NameBlood relation withcandidateAvailableEvidenceCasterecordedinevidenceYear ofevidenceRemarkShelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarXIII.Hira Bhila SavleCousin PaternalAuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 488, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli02.06.19641st Standard---XIV.Bablibai Guman SavlePaternal AuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 491, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli03.06.19651st StandardSeparate paper has been pasted in thecolumn of caste in the school register andon that paper, caste ‘Hindu Koli’ appears.XV.Meerabai Father Mohan SavleCousin PaternalAuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 500, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli17.06.19651st Standard---XVI.Sarubai Bhila SavleCousin PaternalAuntAdmission Extract of General Register no. 535, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli06.06.19661st Standard---XVII.Pundlik Hilal SavleCousin UncleAdmission Extract of General Register no. 550, book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu Koli29.06.19661st Standard---XVIII.Manjula Guman SavlePaternal AuntAdmission Extract of General register book no. 3(1) of Z.P. Primary Hindu To. KoliBirth 01.06.1961Letter 'टो' has been insertedsubsequently, in a different handwriting. [10] WP / 1209 / 2022Sr.No.NameBlood relation withcandidateAvailableEvidenceCasterecordedinevidenceYear ofevidenceRemarkSchool Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarXIX.Bharat Hilal SavleCousin UncleAdmission Extract of General Register no. 736 of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu KoliBirth01.06.1964---XX.Nanabhau Guman SavleFather Admission Extract of General Register of Z.P. Primary School Shelti, Tq. Shahada, Dist. NandurbarHindu To. KoliBirth01.06.1966Letter 'टो' has been insertedsubsequently, in a differenthandwriting.XXI.Chhotulal alias Nanabhu GumanSavleFatherColour photocopy of service bookHindu To. KoliDate of start of service19.06.1991Letter 'टो' has been insertedsubsequently, in a differenthandwriting.This is a vigilance report conducted at the time of claim of one of thepetitioner’s blood relatives by name Kunal Chhotulal Savale which hasbeen referred to. 13. It is necessary to note that the proceeding before thecommittee constituted under the Act is in the nature of a quasi judicialenquiry. The facts can be proved on the basis of preponderance ofprobabilities and strict proof is not to be insisted for.14. Neither the committee nor the vigilance officer has raisedany doubt about the record reproduced herein-above is of the petitioner’sancestors from the paternal side. As has been laid down in the matter ofAnand Vs. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims [11] WP / 1209 / 2022and others; (2012) 1 SCC 113, the pre-constitutional record would carrygreater probative value as compared to the record of the latter period. This is obviously because the policy of reservation in the light of Articles341 and 342 of the Constitution of India under which the schedules havebeen prepared listing various scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, noone could be attributed with any ulterior intention of deriving thereservation benefit, prior to the advent of such policy. 15.Therefore, in our considered view, when the pre-constitutional record of the petitioner’s forefathers could be traced or wasproduced, reference by the committee to the record of postindependence period and its approach in referring to and analyzing it,either in support of or against the petitioner’s claim should take a backseat. Obviously, such post independence record either favourable to thepetitioner or against her would not outweigh the pre-constitutional recordwhich was available to the committee. We, therefore, proceed toexamine the inference drawn by the committee on the basis of the pre-constitutional record only.16. As can be seen from the afore-mentioned charts, the first 4entries in the first chart, first 10 entries in the second chart and the first 7entries in the third chart need to be objectively scrutinized. As we havementioned herein-above, the impugned judgment does not specificallycomment on veracity or otherwise of each of these pre-constitutional [12] WP / 1209 / 2022entries and we had to understand its inference based on the vigilancereport. 17. One need not delve deep to observe that every entry in theconstitutional order / schedule has its own sanctity and has to beunderstood and applied strictly as laid down in Milind Sharad Katwareand others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 1987 Mh.L.J. 572. Admittedly, the tribe ‘Koli’ which was initially included in other backwardclass, subsequently, was included in special backward class. As againstthis, ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘Dhor Koli’ are included in entry at serial no. 28 ofscheduled tribes. Obviously, therefore, Koli entries would be inconsistentwith the claim of ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’. 18. As can be seen, the school record or birth record of 1913,1922, 1928 and 1935 describe the petitioner’s forefathers as ‘Koli’. However, school record and birth record of 1906, 1923, 1925, twoentries of Bhila Ragho and Guman Budha of the year 1930, 1932, 1937,1942, 2 entries of Mohan Ragho and Motiram Bhila of 1948, describepetitioner’s forefathers as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’ or‘Hindu To. Koli’. Though the committee had plausible reasons to discardsome of this record on the ground of the entries being suspicious andlooked manipulated, or else the original record of the school was nottallying with the loose pages containing some of these entries, even if thecommittee is justified in discarding these dubious entries, it is abundantlyclear that these pre-constitutional entries which have been doubted by [13] WP / 1209 / 2022the committee and even by the vigilance cell, petitioner’s forefatherswere interchangeably described as ‘Koli’, ‘Dhor Koli’ ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘KoliDhor’. It is thus quite clear that the entries were made ex facieinterchangeably, without intending to describe these individuals bearingin mind the future consequences. In other words, the persons who musthave furnished the information while making these entries in the schoolrecord or in the birth and death register in Form no. 14 must have looselydescribed the caste as per their own understanding. At times, the entrieswere made as ‘Koli’ which could have been used colloquially as a genericname. If such is the state of affairs, the forefathers of the petitionerthough at times were described as Koli, but were also number of timesdescribed as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’, one needs toappreciate these entries pragmatically. 19. It is just possible that the person providing the informationmay describe the caste as ‘Koli’ even without what he meant was todescribe that it with an adjective, ‘Dhor’ or ‘Tokre’. While recording theentries ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’ he or they would do itconsciously emphasizing the adjective having a different connotation. Therefore, though per se, the entry ‘Koli’ is inconsistent with the claim ofbeing ‘Tokre Koli’ or ‘Dhor Koli’, when there are plentiful entries of ‘DhorKoli’ or ‘Tokre Koli’ of the pre-constitutional period, in our consideredview, the principle of preponderance of probabilities would apply andwould substantiate the petitioner’s claim. It is not merely a question of [14] WP / 1209 / 2022mathematical calculation as to how many are the favourable entries asagainst the contrary entries of ‘Koli’. It would be a matter of appreciationof the circumstances while making those entries, that too in pre-constitutional era. Obviously, when many of the pre-constitutional entriesare of first quarter of the 20th century when the rate of literacy must havebeen drastically low, even if there are few contrary entries of ‘Koli’, in ourconsidered view, not much weight can be attached to it whensimultaneously there are plentiful favourable entries as well, of the sameperiod.20. True it is that there seems to be some attempt atmanipulation for the obvious purpose. However, we have expresslyignored such entries which are dubious in nature as described by thecommittee. We have considered only those entries regarding which thecommittee has not entertained any doubt about their genuineness. Still,we have found that there are number of favourable entries describing theforefathers as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’.21. True it is that there is no clear entry of ‘Tokre Koli’ which isthe claim of the petitioner of the pre-constitutional period and the word‘To’ seems to have been added at a later point of time. However, wehave already considered the aspect as to whether claim of ‘Tokre Koli’and that of ‘Dhore Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’ could be treated as inconsistent, inthe matter of Nilesh Sonawane (supra). We pointed out that entry no. [15] WP / 1209 / 202228 of schedule of Tribe Order, 1950 mentioned four tribes - ‘Koli Dhor’,Tokre Koli’, ‘Kolcha’ and ‘Kolgha’. If the legislature in its wisdom has put‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ in the same entry, the claim of ‘Tokre Koli’cannot be treated as inconsistent with that of ‘Koli Dhor’.22. There is one more aspect which needs to be emphasized inthis context. A person would not derive any additional advantage orbenefit by being described as ‘Tokre Koli’ instead of ‘Koli Dhor’ or viceversa. This would be another reason not to treat such claims to beinconsistent. Therefore, when, as is mentioned herein-abvove, there isacceptable documentary evidence of pre-constitutional period whereinthe petitioner’s forefathers were described as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’,the committee could not have refused to extend its benefits to her whenshe has been claiming to be a ‘Tokre Koli’. 23. In the light of the fact that there is substantial documentaryevidence, even the committee could not have applied the affinity test, thescope of which is limited, as is described in Anand Vs. Committee forScrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and others (supra) andMaharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others; 2023 SCC Online SC 326.24. It is necessary to note that the petitioner has filed civilapplication no. 6755 of 2024 and has produced coloured photocopies ofthe birth and death register of village Shelti of 1905 as well as coloured [16] WP / 1209 / 2022photocopy of the general register of Zilla Parishad Primary School, Shelti,Taluka - Shahada. It is mentioned in this application that this record wasavailable to the petitioner when the enquiry was going on before thecommittee but the committee merely retained it without raising anyobjection. 25. Learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that evenno comment has been made on it. Instead of going into the allegationsabout the committee having not entertained and scrutinized such record,since it is now made available to us, and expressly reads an entry in thename of Ragho Ratan Kubala of 11-10-1905 describing him to be ‘KoliDhor’, ex facie, this entry in the birth register does not seem to beinserted rather it appears sequentially at serial no. 24 and wouldsubstantiate the petitioner’s claim.26. In the result, the impugned order is not sustainable in lawand is liable to be reversed.27. The writ petition is allowed.28. Impugned order is quashed and set aside.29. The respondent - committee shall immediately issue tribevalidity certificate to the petitioner as belonging to ‘Tokre Koli’ scheduledtribe in the prescribed format.30.Pending civil application is allowed and disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/