1 WP8030//10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8030 OF 2010 Vishwas Anand Bachhav ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. WITH CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.453 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra and others ...Petitioners v/s Shri Milind Anand Bachhav and others ...Respondents Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Petitioners. Mr R.K. Mendadkar for Respondents. 2 WP8030//10 CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 3RD FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. :- 1] Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2] Writ petition No.8030 of 2010 is filed by Vishwas A. Bachhav. Writ petition No.453 of 2011 is filed by the State of Maharashtra, the respondent No.1 in that petition is Milind Anand Bachhav. Admittedly, both Vishwas and Milind are real brothers, therefore both the petitions can be conveniently disposed off by a common order. 3] Writ petition No.8030 of 2010 has been filed in this Court challenging the order dated 18 th June 2010 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of V.A. Bachhav that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe is not valid. That order was made mainly on the ground that in the primary school record of the father of 3 WP8030//10 Vishwas, the caste is mentioned as  Hindu Koli and that entry relates to the year 1950. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner while arguing writ petition No.8030 of 2010, had contended that the real bother of Vishwas by name Milind has been granted validity certificate holding that his claim that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe is valid. Therefore, the Government took inspection of the record and found that indeed the Scrutiny Committee by order dated 27 th February 2006 has issued a validity certificate holding that the claim of Milind that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe is valid. It was also found by the Government that the Vigilance Cell, whose report was called in the case of Milind, had duly reported to the Scrutiny Committee that in the primary school record of Milind s father, his caste is recorded as Hindu Koli. The Scrutiny Committee, however, ignoring this important document, granted validity certificate in favour of Milind. Therefore, the State Government has filed writ petition No.453 of 2011 challenging the validity certificate granted in 4 WP8030//10 favour of Milind. That is how both these petitions have come up before us. The learned counsel appearing for Milind in writ petition No.453 of 2011 submits that there are laches in filing that writ petition by the State Government. He also submits that the State Government does not have locus to file the petition. So far as the merits are concerned, the learned counsel does not dispute that in the Vigilance Cell report submitted in the case of Milind, was before the Scrutiny Committee and it was specifically mentioned in that report that in the primary school record of Milind s father, the caste re corded is Hindu Koli. 4] It is clear from the record that while considering the cases of both the brothers for examination of their claim that they belong to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe, the document viz. Entry in the primary school record of their father made in the year 1950 that he belongs to Hindu Koli caste which is not a Scheduled Tribe, was before the Scuri9tny Committee. The Committee ignored that 5 WP8030//10 important entry and granted validity certificate in favour of Milind whereas relying on that entry, the validity certificate has been denied to Vishwas. To say the least, this is an inconsistent conduct on the part of the Scrutiny Committee. It is now a settled law that entries about caste made before the year 1950 when the reservations and concessions for Scheduled Tribe came into force, are important and have to be given due importance. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee passed in favour of Milind ignoring the entry in the primary school record of his father will have to be set aside. It is accordingly set aside, the matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law. So far a writ petition No.8030 of 2010 is concerned, it is clear that though the validity certificate issued in favour of petitioner s real brother was pointed out to the Scrutiny Committee, the Committee did not properly appreciate that. In our opinion, in order to give an opportunity to putforth his case to the petitioner in this petition 6 WP8030//10 and respondent in writ petition No.453 of 2011, it will be appropriate to set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee in writ petition No0.8030 of 2010 also, so that both the matters can be heard by the Scrutiny Committee again. We accordingly so direct. The order dated 18 th June 2010 is set aside. The Scrutiny Committee shall take up cases of both the brothers Vishwas and Milind together for enquiry and after granting an opportunity to putforth any documentary or oral evidence, dispose off the same in accordance with law. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )