1 wp5434.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5434 OF 2008 Balaji Vitthalrao Anjanwad ... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents ------ Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Shri R.P. Phatake, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. Coram: Smt. Nishita Mhatre & M.,T.Joshi, JJ. Date : 15th June, 2011. P. C. 01. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith, and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 02. The grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that his claim of being a member of the Mannerwarlu Tribe has been negated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, while the present petition was pending, his paternal cousin has been issued a caste validity certificate, indicating that he belongs to the Mannerwarlu Tribe. 02. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, therefore, submits that it would be necessary for the scrutiny committee to 2 wp5434.08 consider the said certificate and decide the claim of the petitioner, afresh. Apart from this, he points out that the petitioner has not been supplied the report of the enquiry conducted by the vigilance cell, as required under the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Caste Verification Act. 03. Mr. Phatke, the learned Counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, opposed this petition, vehemently, by submitting that the preliminary documents produced by the petitioner, indicate that his father and others belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC) and not to the Scheduled Tribe. He, therefore, submits that remitting the present matter to the Scrutiny Committee would serve no purpose. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Babarao s/o Manikrao Padalwar vs. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition No. 2320 of 2006) decided on 21.1.2008. 04. We have no doubt that merely because one member of the family is granted a caste validity certificate, another member need not be granted that certificate, unless he/she establishes his/her claim, independently. However, in our opinion, the fact that the paternal cousin of the petitioner has been issued the validity certificate during pendency of the present writ petition, would be a factor which the scrutiny committee should take into consideration 3 wp5434.08 while passing an order in respect of the Petitioner's claim. This is specially so, when the vigilance cell had conducted the enquiry simultaneously in respect of the petitioner's claim, as well as his cousin's claim. Apart from that, we have been informed that the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee were progressing, simultaneously. However, the petitioner's claim has been invalidated and thereafter the claim of his cousin has been allowed. 05. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that it would be necessary to remit this matter to the scrutiny committee for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner. Further, since the vigilance cell report was not furnished to the petitioner, we direct that the vigilance cell shall conduct a fresh enquiry in respect of the claim of the petitioner and furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. The scrutiny committee shall thereafter pass appropriate orders within six months from today. Petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 4.7.2011. 06. With these observations, petition stands disposed of. Rule made absolute, accordingly. (M. T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp5434.08