HCBM070111262026_1_2026-10-19

WP-4779-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4779 OF 2026 Mr. Aditya Anantrao Koli Age : 20 years, Occupation : Student, Resident of Village Upari, Tal-Pandharpur, District Solapur, Pin Code-413 310 ...Petitioner Versus 1. The Scheduled Tribe Certiicate, Scrutiny Committee, Pune, Division Pune.

Through its Joint Commissioner/Vice President, Oice at : Kapil Towers, C-Wing, 5th Floor, Near RTO Oice, Pune-411 001 2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -400 032. ...Respondents ...

Mr. Amit Sale a/w Mr. Sachin M. Bhavar for the Petitioner.

Mr. Vikas M. Mali, AGP for the Respondent-State.

...

Coram : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

Reserved on : October 06, 2026.

Pronounced on : October 19, 2026.

JUDGMENT : (PER NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J)

1. By consent of both the sides, heard inally at the admission stage.

2. Impugned in this Writ Petition is the order dated 11 th March 2026 passed by the Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Harish 1/14 WP-4779-2026.doc Petitioner’s tribe claim towards the ‘Koli Mahadev’- Scheduled Tribe.

3. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’-Scheduled Tribe. The competent authority had issued the caste certiicate to the Petitioner in that regard. The Petitioner is the student. H e submitted the application before the Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Commit tee for validation of his tribe certiicate. Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for inquiry. Th e Vigilance Cell submitted its report. The Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committ ee issued the notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner iled his rep ly. By the impugned order, Respondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee invalidat ed the Petitioner’s tribe claim.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the Petitioner’s tribe claim is invalidated mainly on the ground that , there was interpolation in the school record of the Petitioner’s grandfather wherein the caste was mentioned as ‘Koli’ and ‘e’ was added before the word ‘Koli’. The Scrutiny Committee accepted the Vigilance C ell report in respect of interpolation without any expert’s opinion. The other ground for invalidation is that, the pre-Constitution era do cuments of the Petitioner’s forefathers and blood relatives records the caste as ‘Koli’. The community belonging to ‘Koli’ are the residents of coastal area and the Petitioner’s forefathers were the resident o f District Solapur, which is not the coastal area. He submitted that the Sc rutiny Harish 2/14 WP-4779-2026.doc Committee did not consider the other documents on record which supports the Petitioner’s claim. He submitted that, the Petition be allowed. He relied on the decisions in :

i. Kum. Bhumika D/o Ravindra Koli vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others [in W.P. No. 717 of 2021 dated 4th December, 2025];

ii. Manthan S/o Vikas Adhatrao vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors [in W.P. No. 12787 of 2025 dated 27th July 2026];

iii. Harshad Mukund Parchande vs. State of Maharashtra and Another [in W.P. No. 4340 of 2026 dated 4th September 2026];

iv. Ku. Ganesh S/o Santosh Koli vs. The State of Maharashtra and others [in W.P. No. 3991 of 2026 dated 20th August 2026].

5. It is submitted by learned AGP appearing for the Respondents that, the irst entry of caste in respect of Vasant Bhimrao Ko li, who is the grandfather of the Petitioner, is ‘Mahadev Koli’, and the second caste entry of Vasant Bhimrao Koli is ‘Koli’. He submitted th at, why the subsequent caste entry of Vasant was ‘Koli’ and not ‘Mahade v Koli’. He submitted that, the other documents of the Petitioner’s blood relatives records the caste as ‘Koli’. He relied on the decision in Tushar S/o Raju Raut and Another vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ano ther [in W.P.

No. 11876 of 2024 decided on 31st August 2026].

6. We called the record from the Respondent No. 1-Scrutin y Harish 3/14 WP-4779-2026.doc Committee in respect of the Petitioner. We perused the same. The Petitioner’s father, Anantrao Vasant Koli, iled his aidavit i n the prescribed format giving the necessary details and the following genealogy:

7. The impugned order goes to show that, in support of his claim, Harish 4/14

WP-4779-2026.doc

the Petitioner relied on 43 documents. One of the relevan t document relied upon by the Petitioner is the entry of his grandfat her, Vasant Bhimrao Koli, in the school record dated 04.05.1942, wherein the caste is mentioned as ‘e- dksGh’. The impugned order shows that, during the school inquiry, the Vigilance Cell examined the general reg ister of the Zilla Parishad school at Degaon, wherein the said entry was made. The Vigilance Cell opined that ‘e’ was subsequently interpolated before the word ‘Koli’ against the entry of Vasant Bhimrao Koli. The Resp ondent No. 1-Scrutiny Committee noted the said aspect from the Vigilanc e Cell report and discarded the said entry on the ground that it was interpolated and the said aspect cannot be ignored.

8. In Harshad Mukund Parchande (supra), which was the case in respect of invalidation of the tribe claim of the Petitioner therein towards ‘Koli Mahadev’, the Vigilance Cell noted that, the word ‘Mahadev’ was seen in light ink and the word ‘Koli’ was seen in dark ink.

Reliance was placed on the Judgment in Manthan S/o Vikas Adhatrao (supra), which was also the matter in respect of the caste cl aim towards ‘Mahadev Koli’ wherein, there is consideration of the Judgmen t in Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra [(2009) 10 SCC 268] , wherein it is observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that, interpolation o r fabrication in public records cannot be inferred on mere conjecture or visual Harish 5/14 WP-4779-2026.doc impression as to ink, handwriting or the age and condition of the register. It is observed that, the doubts entertained by th e Committee regarding old records were unsupported by expert material and rest on no legally acceptable foundation and such suspicion, by itself , was wholly insuicient to dislodge certiied copies of public documents.

9. This Court in Harshad Mukund Parchande (supra) noted that, the Scrutiny Committee did not dealt with the indings of the Vigil ance Cell and, therefore, the impugned order therein was quashed and set aside.

10. In Kum. Bhumika D/o Ravindra Koli (supra), which was the petition against the invalidation of the claim towards ‘Tokre Kol i’, Scheduled Tribe, one of the ground for invalidation of t he claim was interpolation in the relevant records and on the basis o f observations in the said Judgment in Sayanna (supara) , this Court did not concur with the indings of the Scrutiny Committee.

11. In the case at hand, the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee discarded the entry dated 04.05.1942 in the school record in respect of Vasant Bhimrao Koli on the basis of the Vigilance Cell repor t that, there was interpolation in the caste column by way of including ‘e’ before the word ‘Koli’. Neither it is the case of Respondent No.1-Scru tiny Committee nor the record shows that, the said entry of Vasant Bhimrao Koli was sent for examination by the handwriting or forensic exp ert. In Tushar S/o Raju Raut (supra), wherein the only entry of pre- Harish 6/14 WP-4779-2026.doc Independence era dated 01.02.1946 in the primary school r ecord of the grandfather of the Petitioner therein was found to be inte rpolated in the nature that ‘ e’ was added between words ‘Hindu’ and ‘Koli’, observations in the said judgment goes to show that, the certiicate was issued by the Headmaster of the school that word ‘e’ was added subsequently in diferent handwriting and in diferent ink, and so the said interpolated entry was discarded. It is not so in the case at hand.

There is nothing to show that, the Headmaster of the school where the said entry dated 04.05.1942 is made, had certiied the interpolation. It is thus clear that, only on the basis of the Vigilance Cell re port, Respondent No.1- Scrutiny Committee held that there was interpolation in the said pre-Constitution era entry.

12. The larger color print of the said page of the register is enclosed at page No. 375 of the record. The entry of Vasant Bhimrao Koli is shown at serial No. 45 and under the caste column ‘e- dksGh’ is written.

There are other entries as well till serial No. 56. Withou t the aid of expert's opinion, the observations of Respondent No.1-Scr utiny Committee in discarding the said entry is not possible. Keeping the aforesaid observations in the case of Sayanna (supra), it will not be possible to maintain the observation of Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee in respect of the said entry dated 04.05.1942, which is Harish 7/14 WP-4779-2026.doc admittedly of pre-Constitution era. There is no dispute in re spect of the above genealogy submitted by the Petitioner’s father. The said genealogy goes to show that, Vasant Bhimrao Koli was the gran dfather of the Petitioner, and thus, the Petitioner is related by blood with Vasant Bhimrao Koli from the paternal side. The said entry sup porting the Petitioner's claim and being of pre-Constitution era will b e relevant and have more probative value.

13. The impugned order goes to show that in the Zilla Parishad school record of Upari, Taluka Pandharpur, District Solapur, the caste of Vasant Bhimrao Koli is recorded as ‘Hindu Koli’ in the year 1943. The impugned order further records that in several pre-Constitution era documents, the caste ‘Koli’ is found in the revenue record of the a ncestors of the Petitioner. For this, reliance is placed by the learned coun sel for the Petitioner on the judgment in Ku. Ganesh S/o Santosh Koli (supra), which was the petition against the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner therein towards ‘Koli Mahadev’, and the Petitioner therein was the resident of Dist rict Solapur. The observations of this Court in Prabhu s/o Narayan Survase vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, [2004 (4) ALL MR 815], is considered in the said Judgment, wherein the historical back ground of ‘Koli Mahadev’ tribe is considered. The relevant observatio ns from the said Judgment are reproduced below :

Harish 8/14

WP-4779-2026.doc

“10……...This Court considered the historical background in respect of inclusion of “Koli Mahadev” in the Scheduled Tribes Order. It would not be out of place to reproduce the relevant paragrap hs from the said Judgment ;

“8. Presidential notiication, notifying the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, in so far as the State of Bombay is concerned, included amongst the Scheduled Tribes Koli Dh or and Koli Mahadev. At the relevant time, the ive distr icts, now in Marathwada, were not a part of the Bombay State but were part of the State of Hyderabad. There was no inclusion of the tribe Koli Mahadeo among the Scheduled Tribes notiied f or the State of Hyderabad. Thereafter even under the amendme nt to the Constitution (Scheduled) Tribes Order, 1950, the position remained as under :

Mahadeo Koli was declared Scheduled Tribe in the Bombay Province as early as 1933. For the State of Bombay, un der item 12 were included Koli Dhor, Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha . Then under item 3(a) in certain talukas in Ahmednagar, Kolaba, Nashik, Poona and Thana, Koli Mahadev or Dongar were a lso notiied as Scheduled Tribes.

Then came the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Or ders (Amendment) Act, 1976. Under this, in so far as the Sta te of Maharashtra is concerned, under item No.28 were included Koli, Dhor, Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha and under item No.29, Koli Mahadeo, Dongar Koli, and at item no.30 were Koli Mal har, for the entire State.

In the erstwhile State of Hyderabad there was an enac tment, known as Tribal Areas Regulation, 1359 Fasli under which the 'Tribe' was deined to mean Bhils, Chenchus, Gonds, Hil l Reddies, Kolams Koyas, Naikpods, Pardans, Totis. Thus, in erstwhile State, there was no reference to either Mahadeo Kolis or Kolis as Scheduled Tribe except as an agricultural community wherein it was referred to as Kolis. The Backward Classes Commiss ion had however suggested inclusion of Koli as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Hyderabad. This was never given efect to by any speciic Presidential order or Legislation.

The ive districts, now eight, of Marathawada were earlier forming part of erstwhile State of Hyderabad. When then Backward Classes Commission submitted its report, one of its recommendations, for the State of Hyderabad, was to include Koli, as a Scheduled Tribe. In so far as State of Hydera bad is concerned, we have some material from the book "The Castes and Tribes of H.E.H. The Nizam's Dominions" by Syed Siraj Ul Harish 9/14 WP-4779-2026.doc Hassan, published in the year 1920 (Bombay, The Tata Press).

In respect of Kolis, internal structure is described as under :

Mahadev Kolis derive their name from the god Mahadeo and they have 24 exogamous septs (sects), each of which is fur ther divided into a number of surnames or sub-sections. The Kolis observe the simple rule of exogamy that a man may not marry outside the sub-tribe or inside the sept (sect) to which he belongs. In so far as religion is concerned, it is set out that their patron deity is Mahadeo, their household worship, in which priests take no part, is addressed to Bhairoba (Sonari, Ahmednagar), Devi of Tuljapur (Nizam's territory) and Khan doba of Jejuri (Pune). The dead are buried in a lying posture, wit h the face upwards and the head pointing to the north.

In the Encyclopedic Proile of Indian Tribes, by Sachchid ananda and R. R. Prasad, in an article written by Navinchandr a Jain and Robin D. Tribhuwan it is mentioned that the Mahadeo Kol is are one of the major tribes of western Maharashtra. It is predominantly found in ive districts namely Nashik, Pune, Ahmednagar, Thane and Raigad.

The major deities of Mahadeo Kolis are goddess Bhavani, and gods Kaloba and Bhairoba, respectively. The Mahadeo K olis bury their dead and head points towards the south. Irrespective of the changes which are taking place in their life style, the M ahadeo Kolis still hold superstitious beliefs about life, death, et c. The traditional village panchayat of the Mahadeo Kolis is kno wn as "Gaon Baithak".

In the Census of India, 1941, Vol.XXI HEH Nizam's Dominion, published in 1945, there is Appendix I which is an essay by Christoph Von Furer Haimendrof Ph.D. on "Tribal Populatio ns of Hyderabad Yesterday and Today", which states that Kolis in Hyderabad State are known and recognised as Scheduled Tri be and the "Kolis" in erstwhile Hyderabad State on reorganis ation of State, will continue as Scheduled Tribe. This factually s eems not to be correct.

***

11. The conclusions that must follow from the discussion are as under :- (a) The Committee, considering the claim of a candidate, is the only fact inding Committee. Therefore, great care must be taken in absence of any appeal, to consider and appre ciate all Harish 10/14 WP-4779-2026.doc the evidence, documentary or by way of aidavit or oral which has been produced.

(b) As a fact inding Committee and, a quasi judicial author ity, deciding the status of the party and from which order no appeal lies, it must record reasons for rejecting the evidence p roduced, documentary or oral. The need for recording reasons is because a High Court examining the order in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 would be in a posi tion to know whether correct tests have been applied and whet her the evidence placed before the Committee has been considered.

(c) Merely because an entry as, for instance, Koli, is recorded in the School records, by itself, cannot result in rejecting the claim of a candidate. This is more so in the ive districts, now eight districts, of Marathwada, which were earlier forming par t of the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and who admittedly are no t in the profession of ishing as traditional occupation nor is Marathwada a coastal belt. The Committee, while consid ering the claims of Scheduled Tribe candidates, coming from th is area, will have to consider the other material placed before it and not merely proceed on the footing that, because Koli is sh own in the school certiicates or, some other document, all other evidence must be rejected. The Committee must consider the documentary evidence, coupled with the Vigilance Report a nd other evidence of tribal traits and characteristics, to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner belongs to the tribe, he/she claims to being. No doubt, the burden will be more on the candid ate where such entry is recorded unlike in a case, no such documentary evidence is recorded. As has been held in the case of Rajesh s/o. Yadavrao Sankaple (supra), Kolis in Marath awada did not become Mahadeo Kolis by the Presidential Order of 1976. However, it would still be open to persons cla iming to be belonging to Mahadeo Kolis to establish that they are not isherman and establish by evidence their tribe charac teristics as Mahadeo Kolis.

(d) In so far as documentary evidence is concerned, mere absence of the records of the parents of the candidate cann ot be held against a claimant. The very fact that the tribe/caste is notiied, as S.C./S.T. is based on the historical fact that the trib e/cast is backward. In these circumstances, the mere absence of documentary evidence cannot be held against a claimant. In those cases the report of the Vigilance Oicer and of the Research Oicer, about the tribal traits and character istics and anthropological studies, must decide the issue based on the evidence produced.

Harish 11/14

WP-4779-2026.doc

(e) We have earlier observed that the orders are ste reotyped.

This needs correction at the hands of the Committee. I n respect of the evidence pertaining to traits, characteristics, anthropological studies, there must be a speciic proforma in respect of each tribe and, may be, even caste. A cla imant should be asked questions in respect of his tribe claim and not pertaining generally to all tribes. It is possible that s ome traits will be common but, at the same time, there will be oth er traits which may be distinct to distinguish one tribe from the anot her.

The praforma for veriication of tribe claim, must include the speciic traits of each tribe.

(f) In the absence of documentary evidence, the duty of the Committee will be to permit the candidate to lead eviden ce of tribal traits and characteristics, by answering the quest ionnaire prepared in respect of his tribe and also allow any ev idence on aidavit to be led on which the candidate can be quest ioned.

That material including in cases where there are documents should be made available to the Vigilance Oicer who will verify the same by following the procedure laid down in judgment of the Apex Court referred to earlier to ind out the aut henticity or genuiness of the claim.

(g) The report of the Vigilance Oicer along with any documents the Oicer may collect must be given to the candidate, to enable him to give his say if the report is adverse, or if the Co mmittee is of the prima facie opinion, that the report has to be rejected.

The reply if any should be considered whilst passing ord er in the claim of the candidate. ”

14. In the case at hand, the Petitioner is the resident of District Solapur. The impugned order shows that, the documents wher ein the caste ‘Koli’ was mentioned were from the revenue record and school record of Pandharpur taluka. In the light of the observatio ns from the aforesaid Judgment of Prabhu s/o Narayan Survase (supra) reproduced above, the said entries showing the caste of the Petitioner's father and ancestors as ‘Koli’ cannot form the basis to maintain the order of invalidation. The Vigilance inquiry nowhere records that ishing was the Harish 12/14 WP-4779-2026.doc traditional profession of the Petitioner's forefather. The Vigilance Cell records that, agriculture, agriculture labour and collectin g the forest produce were the occupation of the Petitioner's ancestors. The observation made by the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee that, the Petitioner could not prove the ainity towards ‘Koli Mahadev’- Scheduled Tribe is unsustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti vs. State of Maharashtra and Others ; [AIR 2023 SC 1657] wherein it is held that, the ainity test is not a litmus test t o decide a caste claim and is not an essential part in the process of the determination of correctness of a caste or tribe claim in every case.

15. The impugned order shows that Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee had invalidated the tribe claim of the cousins of the Petitioner by name Vaishnavi Balasaheb Balwantrao and Atharva Balasaheb Balwantrao. The copy of the order dated 17 th July, 2023 in Writ Petition No. 2361 of 2023 enclosed to the Petition as ‘Exh. K’ shows that, Atharva Balasaheb Balwantrao had challenged the order of invalidation dated 11.10.2022 invalidating his tribe claim towards ‘Koli Mahadev’, and this Court observing that, the entry dated 04.05.1942, i.e.

of Vasant Bhimrao Koli, being the oldest would have greater probative value, but this aspect of the matter was not conside red in any manner by the Scrutiny Committee, and this Court remanded the matter back to Harish 13/14 WP-4779-2026.doc Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee. It appears from the impugne d order that, by order dated 10.04.2024, respondent No.1-Scr utiny Committee had again invalidated the tribe claim of Atharva Balasaheb Balwantrao. However, the said invalidation cannot be the reason to uphold the impugned order in the light of the above observations which are borne from the documents available on record in the P etitioner’s case and the observations in the earlier Judgments.

16. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order invalidating the petitioner's tribe claim cannot sustain. Thus, we proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 11 th March 2026 passed by the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Petitioner's tribe claim towards Koli Mahadev’-Scheduled Tribe is quashed and set aside.

(iii) Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee shall issue the tribe certiicate to the Petitioner as belonging to ‘Koli Mahadev’-Scheduled Tribe within a period of two (2)

weeks.

(iv) The original record be returned to the learned AG P to be returned to the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Harish 14/14 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date:

2026.10.19

19:20:57 +0530