1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 850 OF 2010 Shivpratapsingh Sidheshwar Koli ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 851 OF 2010 Sushama Sidheshwar Koli ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 852 OF 2010 Sulbha Sidheshwar Koli ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. V.M. Humbe, advocate for the petitioners Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.P.Phatke, advocate for respondent No.4 ..... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 10TH FEBRUARY, 2010 2 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for respondents waive service. 2 All these three petitions are disposed of by this common order. In all these matters, decision of the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioners are blood relatives being brother and sisters. They had applied for issuance of caste certificates. After enquiry, Circle Officer submitted report recommending issuance of the Caste certificates to the petitioners as belonging to Mahadeo Koli. However, the Sub Divisional Officer, rejected the claim of the petitioners. Against the said decision, the matter was carried in appeal by each of the petitioners. The scheduled Tribe Certificate scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad by stereo type order has dismissed the appeals preferred by the petitioners reiterating the position stated by the Sub Divisional Officer. We have come across several such stereo type decisions, where identical order has been passed by Scrutiny committee upholding the opinion of the Sub Divisional Officer. We had no option but to set aside the same as bereft of any reason and more so having been passed without application of mind. We could have adopted the same course in the present petitions and relegated the petitioners before the committee. 3 However, in the present case, we have noticed that report submitted by the Circle Officer favourably recommended the case of the petitioners. The Sub Divisional Officer has discarded the material pressed into service by the petitioners in support of their caste claim on specious reasoning. The same does not commend us, for the simple reason that the petitioners are relying on the validation certificate issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in favour of the blood relatives viz. Subahu Shatrughna Balwatkar and Snehlata Shatrughna Balwatkar dated 5.7.1997 and 13.5.1999, declaring that the said persons belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. The school record of said Balwatkar pertain to year 1934 and 1956 respectively. The Sub Divisional Officer has not observed that said persons were not blood relatives of the petitioners herein. 3 In the circumstances, in our opinion, considering the said validation certificates and other material pressed into service by the petitioners, the claim of the petitioners ought to have been accepted by the authorities below and issued caste certificate to the petitioners as claimed. Indeed, those caste certificates would be subject to further scrutiny and validation by the Caste Scrutiny committee. However, for issuance of caste certificate the material placed on record by the petitioners was more than sufficient to accept their claim. Accordingly, we allow all three petitions and direct the Sub Divisional Officer to issue caste certificate in favour of the respective petitioners, which will 4 however, be subject to the opinion of the Caste Scrutiny Committee when the same will be considered for issuance of validity certificate. Petitions are disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/