1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6521 OF 2009. Aniket S/o Laxman Rathod, Age 17 years, Occu. Education, Through guradian Sou. Geeta Laxman Rathod, Age 38 years, Occu. Household, R/o N-12, Bharat Mata Nagar, House No. 17E/D-2, HUDCO, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumai-32. 2) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3) The Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad .. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.D. Pawar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16th FEBRUARY 2010. 2 PER COURT: (S.S. Shinde,J.) 1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition takes exception to the decision dated 27-04-2009 passed by the The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangbabad Division, Aurangabad, confirming the order dated 24-02-2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad. The petitioner has applied for issuance of caste certificate before the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad by filing an application dated 15-07-2008 along with all the documents relevant for issuance of caste certificate. The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad has directed inquiry to the Cirle Officer, Aurangabad to inquire into the matter and 3 submitted its report. The Circle Officer, Aurangabad after inquiry and after recording the statements of neighbourers of the petitioner, submitted his report by giving opinion that, prima facie it reveals that, the petitioner belong to ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tibe. The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad rejected the application of the petitioner by his order dated 24-02-2009 on the ground that, the forefather of petitioner did not migrate from the areas mentioned in clause-1 of the order dated 24-02-2009 and the surnames of relatives of petitioners are not found in schedule of “Thakur-44” Scheduled Tribe. 2. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order dated 24-02-2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad before the respondent Committee. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent Committee. The order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad read thus :- 4 “ The Appellant Shri Aniket Laxman Rathod at Post Bharatmata Nagar, N-12Hadco, Aurangabad, Tq. Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad requested to the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad to issue him a Tribe Certificate as belonging to “Thakur” Scheduled Tribe, but the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad refused to issue the same vide their order dated 24-02-2009 and therefore the Appellant filed an appeal before the Committee against the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangabad vide application dated 19-03-2009. The Scrutiny Committee deeply observed the Order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad Dist. Aurangbad and the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant along with the proposal and the Committee have come to the conclusion that, the Order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad is satisfactory and therefore the committee is agreed with the decision taken by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad in the said case and Hence, the said appeal is rejected by the Committee.” Hence this Writ Petition. 5 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, in spite of the number of documents placed on record in support of his claim, none of the document has been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer and erroneously claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Therefore, learned would submit that, the matter requires consideration. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the Sub Divisional Officer and respondent Committee have submitted that, the sound reasons are recorded in support of the impugned orders, and therefore, no interference is warranted in Writ jurisdiction. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, in our opinion, neither the approach of the Sub Divisional Officer nor that of the Scrutiny Committee can stand the test of the judicial scrutiny. The petitioner in support of his claim submitted the following documents. 6 1) School Leaving Certificate of petitioner. 2) The School admission extract of the petitioner. 3) Domicile Certificate issue in favour of petitioner. 4) Caste Certificate dated 08-11-2008 issued in favour of father of petitioner. 5) Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of Vikrant Gyanprakash Rathod (Cousin Borther). 6) Affidavit filed by Rohan Kishor Rathod. 7) Caste Certificate issue in favour of real uncle dated 02-04-1990 namely Ramkrishna Babulal Rathod. 8) Caste Certificate issued in favour of other uncle namely Sadashiv Babulal Rahod dated 04-01-1994. 9) Caste Certificate issued in favour Jintendra Ramesh Rathod and Nitin Ramesh Rathod real cousin brother of petitioner and 10) Caste Certificate dated 22-07-1991 issued in favour Sunilkumar Subhash Rathod. On perusal of impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad it reveals 7 that, none of the document has been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad. The application filed by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate as “Thakur-44” Scheduled Tribe has been rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad by general observations. In fact, the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad should have adverted to each document submitted by the petitioner in support of his tribe claim. The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangahad should have also taken into consideration the report of the Circle Inspector who inquired into the matter. The perusal of the documents which were placed on record by the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad would clearly show that, the petitioner placed on record caste certificate dated 08-11-2008 issued in favour of the father of the petitioner, caste validity certificate issued in favour of cousin brother Vikrant Gyanprakash Rathod, affidavit filed by Rohan Kishor Rathod, caste certificate issued in favour of real uncle namely Ramkrishana Babulal Rathod dated 02-04-1990, and caste certificate issue in favour of other uncle namely Sadashiv 8 Babulal Rathod on 04-10-1994. None of these documents have been considered by the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, is not sustainable. 6. In so far as the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it has merely agreed with the opinion of the Sub Divisional Officer without recording any finding of its own. The Scrutiny Committee has not even bothered to analyze the documents produced by the petitioner, though it was dealing with the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner. The approach of the Scrutiny Committee to say the least, is perverse. 7. In the circumstances, both the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as Scrutiny Committee are set aside and instead, the Sub Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law. That be done expeditiously and in any case not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of this 9 order. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] SDM* WP6521.09/17-02-10