The old documentary evidence from the pre-independence era holds probative value and should be relied upon to establish tribe claim. The affinity test is not a sole criteria for establishing the link to a Scheduled Tribe.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, taken up for final hearing at admission stage.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 / Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as the "committee") thereby invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur Scheduled Tribe", the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. The factual matrix is as under:

The petitioner while prosecuting studies in Junior College, his tribe claim was referred for its verification to the committee. The petitioner submitted all the necessary documents right from the pre-independence era in support of his tribe claim. The committee has conducted the vigilance enquiry. The petitioner has submitted his reply to the show cause notice issued by the committee. The committee has invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner as being "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe without considering the old record. In this background, the petitioner is before us.

4. Heard Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. P.S. Patil, Addl. G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 / State.

5. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the impugned order and vigilance report. He submitted that the petitioner has produced old record of his forefathers right from the years 1919, 1921, 1922, 1926, 1929, 1932, 1935 and 1945, which are of the pre-independence era. The documentary evidence in the form of school admission record and extract of the birth register of his forefathers clearly speaks about recording of caste as "Thakur" right from the year 1919. The committee has discarded old documentary evidence without assigning cogent reasons.

6. The documents of the pre-independence era have more probative value and needs to be accepted and relied upon when there is no contra evidence. He submitted that the genealogy is not disputed by the committee. He submitted that the committee has simply considered two contra entries pertaining to cousin cousin grandfather of the petitioner namely Devidas Bhuta Thakur and Udesing Vitthal Thakur, in whose school record, their caste is recorded as Brahmabhat and Brahmabhat Thakur respectively dated 06.03.1950 and10.031951. He submitted that the petitioner has denied the relationship with Devidas Bhuta Thakur and Udesing Vitthal Thakur while submitting reply to the vigilance report.

7. He submitted that there is clinching evidence to establish the caste of the family of the petitioner. The above said two contra entries do not hold any evidentiary value. The committee has given unnecessary weightage to those contra entries and discarded the tribe claim of the petitioner. He submitted that validity certificates of petitioners blood relatives from parental side are discarded on flimsy grounds. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the committee is perverse. The findings recorded by the committee are erroneous. The impugned order is defective in the eye of law and it needs to be quashed and set aside.

8. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Addl. G.P for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / State submitted that the committee has taken into consideration all the documentary evidence, which are placed on record by the petitioner in support of his tribe claim as well as the evidence collected during the vigilance enquiry. It is found during the vigilance enquiry that there are contra entries pertaining to the cousin cousin grandfather of the petitioner namely Dividas Bhuta Thakur and Udesing Vitthal Thakur. Mr. Patil submitted that the committee has examined all the documentary evidence relied by the petitioner and arrived at conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove his tribe claim as "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe on the basis of documentary evidence.

9. The committee has also recorde