The court ruled that pre-constitutional records are more probative than post-constitutional ones, and the committee's rejection of the petitioner's claim for 'Tokre Koli' was arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001), the petitioner is taking exception to the judgment and order of the caste scrutiny committee (hereinafter ‘the committee’) whereby it has refused to validate his ‘Tokre Koli’ scheduled tribe certificate issued under Section 4 of the Act of 2001 and directing its confiscation and cancellation.

2. The learned advocate Mr. Yeramwar for the petitioner would submit that the impugned judgment is perverse and arbitrary. Pre-constitutional entries of the petitioner’s ancestors from the paternal side right from the year 1919 have been discarded treating those to be contrary to the claim of ‘Tokre Koli’ being ‘Koli Dhor’ entries. In the matter of Samriddhi Yogesh Savale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 1209/2022 decided on 20.07.2024, this Court has already demonstrated by sound reasons as to how both these scheduled tribes ‘Tokre Koli and ‘Koli Dhor’ form part of the same entry at serial no. 28. No doubt has been expressed about the genuineness of the pre-constitutional record, wherein the petitioner’s ancestors were described as ‘Koli Dhor’ or ‘Dhor Koli’.

3. Mr. Yeramwar would also refer to the Government resolution dated 24.04.1985, wherein both these tribes find place at the same serial no. 28. It is issued by Tribal Development Department. He would refer to the orders issued by the erstwhile Government of Bombay and the extracts from tribes (Tribes and Castes of Bombay, Volume II, written by R.E. Enthoven). He would also refer to “an Index to the Castes and Tribes of the Bombay Presidency (Provisional)”. He also referred to a broacher published in a workshop held by the Tribal Development Department of the State of Maharashtra at Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune, on 24.06.2009, at Nashik, wherein it was categorically observed that ‘Tokre Koli’ was commonly known as ‘Dhor Koli’ earlier due to similar occupations of both the tribes. He also referred to the extracts of “People of India-Maharashtra, Volume XXX, Part II, published by Anthropological Survey of India”, wherein it is categorically observed that ‘Dhor Kolis’ are also referred as ‘Tokre Kolis’. Again, he referred to the report of the Advisory Committee on the revision of the lists of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes published by the Department of Social Security, Government of India, wherein list of all the tribes throughout India has been given. So far as to the State of Maharashtra, it enlists ‘Dhor Koli’ and ‘Tokre Koli’ at the same serial no. 13. He would also refer to a publication “Maharashtra : Land and its People” expressly having description of ‘Dhor Koli’ by making observation that it was known by various names as ‘Koli Dhor’ and ‘Tokre Koli’. He would submit that even in Gazetteer of the Bombay Presidency Volumn XIII, wherein Government Orders of 1882 in respect of Thana mentions that ‘Dhor Koli’ is generally known as ‘Tokre Koli’.

4. Mr. Yeramwar, would, therefore, submit that such enormous record would be evidence to demonstrate that anthropologically ‘Tokre Koli’ tribe was earlier also commonly known as ‘Dhor Koli’ and finding the pre-constitutional record of the petitioner’s ancestors as ‘Dhor Koli’ or ‘Koli Dhor’ could not have been legally treated by the committee as contrary to the petitioner’s ‘Tokre Koli’ claim.

5. Mr. Yeramwar, would, therefore, submit that once having seen such evidence, existence of pre-constitutional record, petitioner’s ancestors describing them as ‘Koli Dhor’ coupled with a specific record right from the year 1952 of petitioner’s grandfather, wherein in the school record he was described as ‘Hindu T