The petitioner challenged the decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, which refused to validate her 'Tokre Koli' scheduled tribe certificate and directed its confiscation and cancellation. The petitioner argued that historical records consistently identified her ancestors as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli', which are listed under the same entry in the Presidential Order. The committee, however, found inconsistencies in the records, some of which it considered manipulated. The court emphasized the greater probative value of pre-constitutional records and ruled that despite some contrary entries, the principle of preponderance of probabilities supports the petitioner's claim. The court ultimately found that the committee had erred in its evaluation and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

1. Introduction

• The petition is heard with the consent of both sides at the admission stage.

2. Petitioner's Claim

• The petitioner challenges the decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001.
• The petitioner argues that historical records describe her ancestors as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli'.

3. Petitioner's Evidence

• Pre-constitutional school records and birth and death records describe the petitioner's forefathers as 'Dhor Koli' or 'Tokre Koli'.
• Government resolution and court decisions support that 'Dhor Koli' and 'Tokre Koli' are synonymous.

4. Committee's Evaluation

• The committee found inconsistencies in the records, particularly in post-constitutional records and some pre-constitutional entries.

5. Analysis of Records

• Detailed analysis of historical records from school and village forms showing entries of 'Koli', 'Dhor Koli', and 'Tokre Koli'.

6. Pre-constitutional Records

• The court emphasizes the greater probative value of pre-constitutional records.
• Pre-constitutional records should take precedence over post-independence records.

7. Inconsistencies in Records

• Discussion on the interchangeable use of 'Koli', 'Dhor Koli', and 'Tokre Koli' in historical records.

8. Legal Principles

• Reference to legal principles and previous court rulings supporting the petitioner's claim.
• Emphasis on the significance of preponderance of probabilities in quasi-judicial enquiries.

9. Conclusion

• The court finds that the committee did not properly evaluate the evidence.
• The petitioner's claim of 'Tokre Koli' is supported by substantial pre-constitutional records.
• The court rules in favor of the petitioner, directing the validation of her 'Tokre Koli' certificate.