IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is the significance of documentary evidence in establishing tribe claims, the requirement for proper justification when relying on adverse remarks, and the limited probative value of the affinity test in modern times.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is heard and decided finally at admission stage.

2. The petitioners impugn the order dated 1/12/2021 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioners to be belonging to “Thakar Schedule Tribe” community which has been included in the list of Scheduled Tribes at S. No. 44.

3. Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have been granted the Caste Certificate as belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe by the Deputy Collector (Planning) Aurangabad by following the due procedure of law. While petitioners were pursuing their education, their caste certificates were forwarded to the respondent No. 2 Committee. The proposals of the petitioners were referred to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry. The report of the Vigilance Inquiry dated 1.12.2015 was furnished to the Committee which stipulates favourable remarks to the petitioners. However, for no good reasons the Committee sought fresh Vigilance Inquiry report. Consequently, the 2nd Report dated 25.11.2021 is procured. It was served upon the petitioners alongwith the show-cause notice dated 26.11.2021. In response to show-cause notice, petitioners appeared before the Committee and submitted detailed reply dated 29.11.2021 offering comments regarding remarks in 2nd report of the Vigilance Cell. However, the Committee, relying upon adverse remarks in the 2nd report, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioners.

Mr. Yeramwar, Learned Advocate for petitioners would point out that no reasons are assigned for making second reference to the Vigilance Cell when the first report throwing light on all the relevant aspects was available with the Committee. He would submit that the procedure adopted by the Committee is contrary to Rule 12(7)(8) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. (Hereinafter referred to as “the SC Rules”). He would further submit that the petitioners have submitted the record right from year 1951 in respect of the blood relations, showing caste entries of Thakar. However, by recording flimsy reasons the caste claim of the petitioners has been invalidated.

4. Per contra, Mr. P.S. Patil, the learned AGP, vehemently opposes the petition. He would submit that the Committee is empowered to refer any caste claim to the Vigilance Cell and obtain necessary information. Although first report of the Vigilance Cell was available in the file, the Committee doubted the correctness of the remarks and again referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell. The 2nd report of the Vigilance Cell specifies that the father of the petitioners failed to establish ethnological and anthropological connections with the Thakar-Scheduled Tribe.

5. Mr. Patil would point out that the Vigilance Report makes reference to various contra entries showing the caste of blood relations of the petitioners as ‘Maratha Thakur’. He would submit that surnames of some of the blood relatives doesn't resemble to Thakar-Scheduled Tribe. He would submit that most of the blood relatives of the petitioners are speaking Marathi language. None of the blood relatives of the petitioners has been granted caste validity till this date. He would, therefore, submit that the Committee has rightly invalidated the caste claim of the petitioners. Mr. Patil would rely upon certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and Others in Civil Appeal No. 2502 of 2022 dated 24th March, 2023.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced, upon perusal of the record it can be gathered that the petitioners, in support of their claim, produced several d