Ghanshyam Uttam Thakur vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Sec. Tribal Development Dept and Anr.

WP 5025 of 2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5025 OF 2024

Ghanshyam Uttam Thakur C/o Uttam Bhikaji Thakur Aged 35 years, Occ.: Student Residing at P.W.D. Office Compound Manur, Tal. Kalwan, Dist. Nashik ...Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya Mumbai – 400 032.

¶7

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik Division Nashik, through its Member Secretary having its office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Old Agra Road, Nashik, Dist. Nashik.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

¶10

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar - Advocate for the Petitioner Shri N. C. Walimbe- Addl. GP a/w Shri A. K. Naik – AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 13^th JANUARY 2026

¶13

ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK):-

¶14

Digitally signed by SEEMA SEEMAKSHITIJ KSHITIJYELKAR YELKARDate:2026.01.21 14:37:10 +0530

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned AGP.

¶16

1/4

¶17

Seema

¶18

WP 5025 of 2024.doc

¶19

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order is passed without hearing the Petitioner. Furthermore, it is the contention of the learned counsel that the copy of the impugned order has not been served upon him. The copy of the impugned order was obtained as per Right to Information Act. In substance, the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order has been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice.

¶20

The learned AGP on the other hand supported the impugned order. It is submitted that several notices have been issued to the Petitioner to appear. It is the Petitioner who has been absent and did not attend, when the matter was listed for hearing. As a result, the Committee had no alternative, but to pass the impugned order.

¶21

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was kept in dark for almost 11 years and that he was not informed that the impugned order had already been passed. Even this aspect is controverted by learned AGP, as according to the learned AGP, the order was communicated to the Petitioner.

¶22

We do not really appreciate the conduct of the Petitioner in failing to appear before the Committee. At the same time, we noticed

¶23

2/4

¶24

Seema

¶25

WP 5025 of 2024.doc

¶26

that there are pre-constitutional documents which Petitioner is relying

¶27

upon in support of the caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee has rejected the caste claim finding that the Petitioner has failed to pass the affinity test. It is settled position of law that affinity test is not a litmus test. If any authority to support the proposition is needed, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and

¶28

Others 1 The Committee ought to consider the materials relied upon in support of the caste claim. The pre-constitutional documents relied upon by the Petitioner are not considered by the Committee.

¶29

In such view of the matter, to give opportunity to the Petitioner

¶30

to substantiate his caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee, the impugned order dated 17.04.2012 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh consideration on merits.

¶31