Allowed¶34

Superintending Engineer Ehv Project Circle Pune v. Bhatusing Eknath Chavan and Another

Tribe claim – 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026CA/12775/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Thakur Scheduled Tribe validity certificate; tribe claim invalidation quashed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; WP 6664/2014; pre-independence school record 14.09.1938; probative value of oldest document; affinity test not a litmus test; area restriction; Vigilance Cell Inquiry; Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar; Abasaheb Gulabrao Thakur v. State of Maharashtra applied; Writ Petition allowed 21.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned order dated 30.06.2014 of Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee quashed and set aside; Respondent No.1 directed to issue validity certificate of belonging to 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe to the petitioner; Rule made absolute; pending Civil Application No. 12775 of 2024 disposed of. ¶34

Superintending Engineer Ehv Project Circle Pune vs Bhatusing Eknath Chavan and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 30.06.2014 of Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim of belonging to 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe is sustainable, particularly where the oldest document (school record dated 14.09.1938 of the petitioner's father) shows caste as 'Thakur' and was discarded. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

Neither the Vigilance Cell Inquiry nor the Scrutiny Committee raised any suspicion about the oldest document (school record dated 14.09.1938 showing caste as 'Thakur'); therefore the Committee's approach in discarding this oldest document having probative value is erroneous.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the judgment of this Court in Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur (supra), the affinity test is not a litmus test in deciding the caste claim of the claimant.

¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Tribe claim — 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe — invalidation by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar (order dated 30.06.2014) challenged in writ petition. Oldest document on record, a pre-independence school record of the petitioner's father dated 14.09.1938, showed caste as 'Thakur'; neither the Vigilance Cell Inquiry nor the Scrutiny Committee raised any suspicion about that document. Held: the Committee's approach in discarding the oldest document having probative value was erroneous. Applying this Court's judgment in Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur v. The State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 7472 of 2021, decided 25.02.2026), held that the affinity test is not a litmus test in deciding the caste claim. Writ petition allowed; impugned order quashed and set aside; Scrutiny Committee directed to issue validity certificate of belonging to 'Thakur', Scheduled Tribe. Pending Civil Application No. 12775 of 2024 disposed of. (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.; Coram: Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde, JJ.; decided 21.04.2026.)

¶1

977

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

977 WRIT PETITION NO. 6664 OF 2014

¶5

Bhatusing Eknath Chavan VERSUS

¶6

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar And Another

¶7

Mr. Umesh Gite h/f. Mr. Sagar S. Phatale, Advocate for the Petitioner Ms. M. N. Ghanekar, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. Devdatt P.Palodkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12775 OF 2024 IN WP/6664/2014

¶10

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 21^st APRIL 2026

¶11

ORDER (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.) :-

¶12

Heard.

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of

¶14

parties the Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

¶15

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.06.2014 passed by Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of

¶16

belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated.

¶17

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite there

¶18

Narwade

¶19

-2-

¶20

being voluminous record including that of the pre-constitutional era showing that the caste of the petitioner is ‘Thakur’, Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee has discarded those documents. He invited our attention to one such document pertaining to the School record of his father, namely, Shantilal Lotan Thakur, showing the entry of 14.09.1938, wherein the caste is mentioned as ‘Thakur’. He would further submit that Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee without considering this document of pre-independence era having probative value, has given more emphasis on area restriction and passing of affinity test. He, therefore submits that Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee has committed an error in passing the impugned order. In order to buttress his submission that the affinity test is not a litmus test for deciding the tribe claim when pre-constitutional document is on record, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abasaheb s/o Gulabrao Thakur Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others delivered on 25.02.2026 in Writ Petition No.7472 of 2021 and other connected Writ Petitions, wherein this Court has held that once there is oldest document of pre-independence era on record showing the status of caste, the affinity test cannot be applied as a litmus test in deciding the tribe claim. He, therefore, urge that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Narwade

977

-3-

Per contra, learned AGP would submit that Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee was right in discarding the documents on which the petitioner places reliance. She would further submit that Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee has rightly considered the aspect with regard to area restriction as well as failure of petitioner to satisfy the affinity test. She, therefore, urge that since the order impugned is well reasoned and is passed after considering the entire documents placed on record, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶25

Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP, and after having gone through the record, we find that the oldest document pertaining to the petitioner’s father in the nature of school record dated 14.09.1938 shows the caste as Thakur. We find that neither in the Vigilance Cell Eqnuiry nor the Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee while deciding the matter has raised any suspicion about the said document. In that view of the matter, we find that the approach of Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee in discarding the oldest document having probative value is erroneous. In the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Abasaheb s/o

¶26

Gulabrao Thakur (supra), we find that the affinity test is not a litmus test in deciding the caste claim of the claimant. In that view of the

Narwade

977

-4-

matter, we are inclined to allow this writ Petition. Hence we pass the following order :

¶31

:: O R D E R ::

¶32

i. The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶33

ii. The impugned order dated 30.06.2014 passed by Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee by which the tribe claim of the petitioner of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled Tribe has been invalidated, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶34

iii. Respondent No.1/Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue validity certificate of belonging to ‘Thakur’, Scheduled tribe to the petitioner.

¶35

iv. Rule is thus made absolute in above terms

¶36

v. Pending Civil Application also stands disposed of.

¶37

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]

¶38

Narwade

Superintending Engineer Ehv Project Circle Pune v. Bhatusing Eknath Chavan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Superintending Engineer Ehv Project Circle Pune v. Bhatusing Eknath Chavan and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shivam Shrikrushna Khanapurkar Thr Father Shrikrushna P. Khanapurkar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shivraj Balasaheb Talware vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Moin Abdul Latif Deshmukh vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Anusaya Baburao Taklikar through Poa Holder Babasaheb Sakharam Mane vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Shaligram Shivram Chitte vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwanth Shankar Auti and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Others