Santosh Atmaram Morey vs State Of Maharashtra And Others
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM010417712007
2026:BHC-AS:43163-FB
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9656 OF 2007
Santosh Atmaram Morey,
Aged 35 years, Occu: Service,
with Respondent No.3.,
Resident of IUDP Colony, Washim,
District-Washim
(since deceased through Legal heirs)
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
].....Petitioner
1A. Savita Santosh Morey
Age : 54 years,
1B. Aditi Santosh Morey
Age : 33 years
1C. Vaibhav Santosh Morey
Age : 30 years
All R/o IUDP Colony, Washim
District : Washim- 444 505
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra
through Ministry of Home Affairs,
through its Secretary, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400032.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
].Respondents
2. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims,
through its Dy. Director, Amravati.
3. Superintendent of Police, Washim
4. Director General of Police
having office near Regal Theatre, Kulaba,
Mumbai
Manisha
1/9
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA
TALEKAR
Digitally signed by
MANISHA
BALKRISHNA TALEKAR
Date: 2026.10.23
14:03:29 +0530
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
.....
Mr. Ramkrishna Parsodkar (through V.C.), for the Petitioner.
Smt. V. R. Raje, A.G.P., for the Respondent-State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
nd
DATE : 22 OCTOBER 2026
JUDGMENT [PER : SANDESH D. PATIL, J.]
1. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing and
th
setting aside of the impugned Order dated 5 April, 2002 passed by the
Respondent No.2- Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe
Claims, Amravati, thereby invalidating the Caste Certificate of the
Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.
2. The Petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition before the Nagpur
st
Bench of this Court. Vide Judgment and Order dated 1 August, 2018
passed by the Division Bench (Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari and Z. A.
Haq, JJ.), the said petition along with group of other petitions were
dismissed. Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti,
thereafter, preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
th
Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its judgment dated 24 March 2023, set
Manisha
2/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
aside the Judgment and Order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court and directed the Registry to place the matter before the Court for
deciding the cases individually. This is how the matter has been placed
before this Court.
3. The Petitioner claims to belong to the caste viz . ‘Thakur Scheduled
Tribe’. The only ground on which the caste claim of the Petitioner was
invalidated was that, the Petitioner could not satisfy the affinity test.
4. Learned Counsel- Mr.Parsodkar, appearing for the Petitioner relied
upon the record of Kotwal Register in case of grandfather of the
Petitioner viz. Sakharam, where the Caste is recorded as Thakur. This
th
certificate was granted on 14 July, 1933. It is also the contention of the
Petitioner that the cousin brother of the Petitioner viz . Vijay Rajaram
th
More was granted Caste Validity Certificate on 7 April, 2001. He also
relied upon the Judgment and Order passed by the Nagpur Bench of
th
this Court [Coram: B.R. Gavai and A. P. Bhangale, JJ.] on 20
December, 2012 in Writ Petition No.1602 of 1998 wherein the Court
was pleased to allow the Petition filed by the cousin-nephew of the
Petitioner viz . Nandakumar Manohar More in which the Order passed
Manisha
3/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was quashed and set aside.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Maharashtra
Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti v. State of Maharashtra &
1
Ors. . He submitted that the impugned Order is principally based on
affinity test and therefore, contrary to the judgment of the Supreme
Court. He has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Apoorva
d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
2
No.1 and Ors. He further relied on the judgment of this Court [Coram:
th
M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak, JJ.] dated 14 January, 2026 in Shri.
3
Dhondi Suresh Palve v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. . He submitted that
since the case of the Petitioner is supported by pre-constitutional
document of the grand-father of the Petitioner, the said document
should be given great weightage and that invalidating the caste claim
certificate of the Petitioner only on the ground of affinity test was
perverse. He prayed for allowing the petition.
6. Learned A.G.P. appearing for the Respondent-State on the other
hand opposed the petition. She submitted that the Petitioner has failed
1
2023 SCC OnLine SC 326
2
2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1053
3
Writ Petition No.2607 of 2010, High Court of Bombay at Bombay.
Manisha
4/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
the affinity test, and that the impugned Order is a reasoned and
justified Order. She prayed for dismissal of the Petition.
7. We have perused the impugned Order. We have also perused the
material on record and documents relied upon by both the parties, and
heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties at length.
Mr. Ramkrishna Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner at the
outset, invited our attention to the family tree of the Petitioner. We
have perused the family tree of the Petitioner which is a part of record
in this petition and duly verified by the Vigilance Cell. The following is
the family tree as supplied by the Petitioner:
वृक्ष वंशावळ
जयराम मोरे
सि ताराम खाराम
राजाराम नरहर आत्माराम श्रीराम
ंतोष बळीराम
विवजय कमलाकर वि नकर मनोहर (विनवे क)
मोहन नं कुमार
(वैधताधारक)
Manisha
5/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
8. Upon perusal of the family tree, it is clear that Sakharam More
was the grandfather of the Petitioner. His father is Atmaram, Rajaram is
his uncle, Vijay (son of Rajaram More) is his cousin brother and
Nandakumar is cousin nephew. With these relations as are evident from
the family tree, we proceed to consider the documents submitted by the
Petitioner. The first document is the Kotwal Register of the grandfather
th
of the Petitioner viz. Sakharam, granted on 14 July 1933, wherein the
Caste is recorded as Thakur.
9. Thereafter, the next document is the Caste Validity Certificate
th
dated 7 April 2001, granted by Committee for Scrutiny and Verification
of tribe Claims, Nashik Division, Nashik in the name of Girish Vithalrao
Thakur, wherein it is mentioned that Vijay Rajamram More, who is the
cousin brother of the Petitioner was declared as belonging to the
‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’ by this Court at Aurangabad Bench in Writ
Petition No.713 of 1994. The cousin-nephew viz . Nandakumar Manohar
st
More was also granted Caste Validity Certificate dated 31 December,
th
2012 pursuant to the Judgment and Order dated 20 December, 2012
passed by the Nagpur Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1602 of
1998.
Manisha
6/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
10. The Transfer Certificate issued by the Headmaster of the Central
Senior Primary School, Mangrul, Navghare shows that the father of the
Petitioner viz . Atmaram Sakharam Thakur was studying in the said
st
school, and that he left the school on 31 July 1944. The caste of
Atmaram is mentioned as ‘Thakur’.
11. These in nutshell are the documents which were before the Caste
Scrutiny Committee. In the impugned Order passed by the Caste
th
Scrutiny Committee on 5 April 2002, the Caste Scrutiny Committee
has basically relied upon the Vigilance Cell Report.
12. The Committee observed that although the documents submitted
by the candidates show the caste entries as ‘Thakur’, the candidate and
his relatives are not in a position to explain the characteristics and
trades of their caste to the Committee and could not prove their affinity
towards ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.
13. The Committee had verified the caste claim. The Scrutiny
Committee conducted the home inquiry through Vigilance Cell Officer.
The Committee observed that the Vigilance Cell Report clearly showed
that the candidate did not belong to the ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.
Manisha
7/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
14. The Committee proceeded on the footing that the entry ‘Thakur’
does not prove that the Petitioner belongs to ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’
and hence, affinity test was conducted. Thus, the Committee has not
discarded the documents which are produced on record. The only
reasoning given by the Committee is that the entry ‘Thakur’ could not
prove that the Petitioner belongs to the ‘Thakur Scheduled Tribe’.
15. In light of the aforesaid factual position, the impugned Order
which is passed only on the basis of the affinity test does not stand the
legal scrutiny and hence, has to be quashed and set aside. The matter in
hand is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) and
judgment of this Court in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale (supra) .
16. In these premises, we are of the opinion that since the close blood
relatives of the Petitioner have already been granted the Caste Validity
Certificate which are valid and subsisting as on today, the present
Petition needs to be allowed and the impugned Order needs to be
quashed and set aside. Hence, the following Order:
Manisha
8/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
12-WP-9656-2007.doc
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.9656 of 2007 is allowed.
th
(ii) The impugned Order dated 5 April, 2002 passed by the
Respondent No.2- Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims, Amravati is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue a Caste Validity
Certificate in favour of the Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Thakur
Scheduled Tribe’ within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
communication of this Order.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. In view of the above, Writ Petition No.9656 of 2007 stands
disposed off.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Manisha
9/9
Uploaded on - 23/10/2026 Downloaded on - 23/10/2026 14:12:14
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)