Safiya Malik

The division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, has delivered a judgment in favor of three petitioners seeking validation of their Scheduled Tribe status, setting aside an order issued by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane.The court directed the committee to issue caste validity certificates to the petitioners within 30 days, ensuring their recognition as belonging to the "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe.

The petitioners, Kinjal Vilas Bastav (18 years), Manav Mukesh Bastav (17 years), and Aayush Prashant Bastav (25 years), had applied for verification of their Scheduled Tribe certificates, issued in Form C by the Sub Divisional Office, Eastern Suburbs, Mumbai Suburban District. However, the scrutiny committee, through a common order dated October 23, 2024, invalidated their claim, leading to the present writ petition.

The petitioners contended that they had an established lineage belonging to the "Koli Mahadev" Scheduled Tribe, supported by multiple prior judicial recognitions of their close paternal relatives. These included their paternal aunt, cousin uncle, and cousin grandfather, all of whom had been granted caste validity certificates by competent authorities and upheld through previous High Court judgements.

The case referenced several writ petitions where similar claims were adjudicated:

• Writ Petition No. 1434 of 1994: Recognition of Yaminee Pandurang Bastav as belonging to the Scheduled Tribe.

• Writ Petition No. 8033 of 2004: Recognition of Yatin Nilkanth Bastav.

• Writ Petition No. 2925 of 2013: Recognition of Pramod Govind Bastav.

• Writ Petition No. 3134 of 2009: Recognition of Vilas Pandurang Bastav and Mukesh Pandurang Bastav.

The petitioners further submitted that the scrutiny committee had erroneously relied upon the rejection of caste validity claims of two individuals, Nischal Chintaman Bastav and Vishal Chintaman Bastav, whose cases were unrelated. They argued that these individuals were not their paternal blood relatives, rendering their cases irrelevant to their claims. The committee’s decision, they argued, disregarded the weight of evidence and the legal precedents set by previous judgments in favor of their family members.

The division bench examined the genealogical tree submitted by the petitioners, which demonstrated direct paternal lineage to individuals previously granted caste validity certificates. The court recorded:

“The biological father of the Petitioner No.1, i.e., the uncle of Petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 and the biological father of the Petitioner No.2, i.e., the uncle of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3, have caste validity certificates as belonging to Koli-Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. Similarly, Petitioners’ real aunt Yaminee Pandurang Bastav is a holder of a caste validity certificate as belonging to Koli-Mahadev. Yatin Bastav, the cousin uncle of the petitioners, and Pramod Bastav, their cousin grandfather, also hold validity certificates.”

The court noted that under Section 8 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 burden of proof is upon the claimant. The petitioners, by presenting caste validity certificates of their paternal blood relatives, had met this requirement.

Further, Rule 2(1)(f) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2005, defines "relative" as a blood relative from the paternal side. The court noted that the scrutiny committee had not disputed the petitioners’ relation to their validated relatives, making the rejection of their claim unsustainable.

The court further recorded:

“When the Respondent No.2 did not find Petitioners' relation with the afore-referred caste validity certificate holders disputable, the law laid down by this Court in Apoorva D/O Vinay Nichale versus Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Others ought to have been followed. Respondent No.2 could not have ignored the caste validity certificates granted to the blood relatives of the petitioners’ paternal side.”

Additionally, the court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti versus State of Maharashtra and Others, which stated the importance of following established legal procedures in caste validity determinations. The judgment reinforced that once a caste validity certificate had been granted to a direct paternal relative, subsequent claim by other family members should be granted unless there was compelling contradictory evidence.

The court noted that the scrutiny committee had failed to provide substantial evidence contradicting the petitioners' claims. The respondents' reliance on the cases of Nischal and Vishal Bastav was deemed misplaced, as no direct relationship with the petitioners had been demonstrated. Furthermore, the court observed that there had been no invalidation or cancellation of the caste validity certificates previously granted to the petitioners' family members, further strengthening their case.

After examining the legal and documentary evidence, the Bombay High Court held that the scrutiny committee’s decision was unsustainable. The court directed:

“The impugned order of the Respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent No.2 is directed to issue Koli-Mahadev Scheduled Tribe Validity Certificate to the Petitioners within a period of 30 days from today.”

Case Title: Kinjal Vilas Bastav & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 40 of 2025

Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre, Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe

[Read/Download order]