{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6703 OF 2009 Rajiv s/o Gangadhar Tarpewad Age-22 years, Occ-Education R/o Manjaramwadi Tq-Naigaon (kh) Dist-Nanded Through Power of Attorney Holder Gangadhar s/o Laxman Tarpewad Age-51 years, Occ-Agri R/o Manjaramwadi Tq-Naigaon (kh) Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner MrS.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. 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: 7th October 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 has challenged the judgment and order dated 21.07.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor by which the Sub Divisional Officer had rejected the application of the petitioner. 3. At the outset, the fact, which gave rise to file the present petition can be summarized as under- The petitioner had filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor seeking caste certificate claiming to be belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had also submitted various documents along with the said application, including caste validity certificate issued to his cousin (son of father’s sister). It appears that the Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 08.05.2009, rejected the said application by observing that the documents produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to issue caste certificate as claimed for. It further appears that being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee, vide its impugned judgment and order dated 21.07.2009, dismissed the appeal and uphold the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. These orders are impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. {3} 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the caste certificate issued to the father of the petitioner on 11.07.1990 by the Taluka Executive Magistrate was inadvertently remained to be submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer along with the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, seeks leave to submit the said caste certificate along with additional documents and to file a detailed affidavit disclosing a genealogy showing close relation with the persons who are issued caste validity certificates. Hence, he urged to remit the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor for consider afresh. We accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the result, this petition succeeds. We quash and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Degloor and the Scrutiny Committee. We hereby remit the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor for consideration afresh. We grant liberty to the petitioner to produce additional documents in support of his claim. We also direct the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor within a period of 3 weeks and produce the additional documents. We also direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to decide the application of the petitioner afresh in the light of the additional evidence to be produced by the petitioner and dispose of the application in accordance with law within 4 weeks thereafter. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6703-09