2025:BHC-AS:55394

Satish Sangar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SATISH WRIT PETITION NO.3984 OF 2009

RAMCHANDRA

SANGAR

Digitally signed by

Vinod Sadanand Patil

SATISH RAMCHANDRA

SANGAR

Age : 35 Years, Occupation : Nil,

Date: 2025.12.16 18:59:54 +0530

Residing at : 7, Kishan Mahal, Hari Niwas,

Naupada, Thane – 2. ...Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Maharashtra

Through its Secretary, Tribal Development

Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai : 400 032.

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny

Committee, Konkan Division, Thane.

Though its Deputy Director ® and Member

–Secretary, Having its office at Opp. Kores

Co., Vartak Nagar, Wagale Estate, Thane

(West), District : Thane.

3. Executive Magistrate, Thane District,

Thane. ...Respondents

Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, Advocate for Petitioner.

Ms.Reena A. Salunkhe, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State.

Mr.Dipak Shigam, Law Officer, CVC Thane.

CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM &

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATED: 11^th DECEMBER 2025. ORDER : (PER : S. M. MODAK, J.)

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Reena Salunkhe for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State.

2. The decision which is challenged in this Petition is given by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee – Konkan Division (“In short, “the Committee”, henceforth) on 29^th August 2008. The Committee has refused to accept the claim of the Petitioner as belonging to tribe “Mahadev Koli”. The Petitioner relied upon pre-constitutional document in the form of “Gaon Namuna No.14” in respect of his father Sadanand. It is dated 9^th April 1936. The caste mentioned is “Hindu Mahadev Koli”. The Committee has compared this document with School Admission Register in respect of one Bhamini Baliram Patil who is his paternal aunt wherein the caste mentioned is “Hindu Son-Koli”. On the basis of these documents, the Committee opined that the Petitioner could not prove his caste claim of “Mahadev Koli”.

3. It is true that the Petitioner has relied upon various documents. It is also true that the Vigilance Inquiry was done. According to Mr.Mendadkar, the Committee was wrong in overlooking pre-constitutional documents of the year 1936. The Committee committed a second wrong in believing the School Admission extract of Bhamini. Both of them submitted that the Gaon Namuna Number of father of the Petitioner was not verified during Vigilance Inquiry.

4. It is true, even though it was not verified, the Committee has compared the same with other document. It is referred in the Vigilance Report. In other words, without Gaon Namuna Number verified during the Vigilance Inquiry, the Committee has accepted it. 5. Submission of learned AGP is, this document was produced before the Committee after the Vigilance Inquiry was done. Even, there is averment in the Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of the Government that the words “Hindu” and “Mahadev Koli (S.T.)” are written in different handwriting and not written by single Authority. 6. So there are two pre-constitutional documents. One is of Petitioner’s father and another is of Bhamini. There are different tribes mentioned. But the document of Petitioner’s father is not verified. It is undisputed fact that pre-constitutional document is having greater probative value. Whatever may be the reason for not verifying this pre-constitutional document during the Vigilance Inquiry, we feel that this document needs to be verified. This verification is to be done by the Vigilance Officer by visiting the concerned Government Offices and ascertaining the original record and then to give opinion whether this document is genuine or not. We feel that the matter needs to be remanded. Hence following order:-

O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is partly allowed.

(ii) The order dated 29^th August 2008 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane is set aside.

(iii) The matter is remanded back for reconsideration by the Committee.

(iv) The Committee is directed to verify the Gaon Namuna Number of