{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6321 OF 2009 Atharv Prakash Kaypalwad Minor, through Natural Guardian father Prakash Laxman Kaypalwad R/o Bhisi, Tq-Kinwat Dist-Nanded at present at Jaypal Dapke House Gunale Galli, Tq-Ahmedpuar Dist-Latur PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Through its Dy. Director (R) Aurangabad 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 24th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of {2} admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 13.03.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, by which the Sub Divisional Officer had rejected the application of the petitioner. 3. The facts, which gave rise to file the present petition, in nut shell, can be summarized thus- It appears that the petitioner, on 26.12.2007, had submitted an application, seeking caste certificate, before the Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat claiming to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had also submitted various documents along with the said application, including caste certificate issued in favour of his father. The Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, vide order dated 22.07.2008, rejected the application of the petitioner by observing that the documents produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to issue caste certificate, as prayed for. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Scrutiny Committee challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. However, the Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 13.03.2009, dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and uphold the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The said orders are impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {3} 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily relied on the caste certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner by the Tahsildar, Kinwat on 29.06.1988. As the father of the petitioner has been issued caste certificate, the petitioner is also entitled to be issued the caste certificate on the strength of the same. In the premise, it appears that the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Scrutiny Committee did not consider this vital document while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer passed the impugned order erroneously without application of mind and the Scrutiny Committee further erred in upholding the decision of the Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, the impugned orders, since are passed erroneously and without application of mind, are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 13.03.2009, passed by the Scrutiny Committee and dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat. We hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat to forthwith issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. 6. Needless to state that the caste certificate to be issued will be subject to verification by the competent scrutiny committee. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6321-09