1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.440 OF 2010 Ramchandra s/o Gyanoba Wadikar, Age: 55 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Babshetwadi, Post Barahali, Tq. Mukhed District Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director(R), Aurangabad. 2. The General Manager (P & IR), Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Central Office, Dr. Anandrao Nair Marg, Mumbai Central-08. Through, the Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nanded, Nanded Division, Nanded. .. Respondents ... Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2010 2 PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 02-01-2010 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. For the nature of the order which is proposed to be passed, it is not necessary to burden the judgment with other factual matrix dealt with by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 3. The principal grievance made before us is that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee suffers from non application of mind. In as much as, the petitioner had relied on the validity caste certificate of his cousin brother Balaji Pandurang Mandewad. However, while 3 dealing with the said document, the Committee proceeded to observe that it pertains to the relatives of the petitioner from maternal side and not of blood relation. The basis on which that assumption is reached is not spelt out in the decision, which is impugned before us. If the petitioner is right in asserting that Balaji Pandurang Mundewad was his cousin brother, naturally the relationship would be that of blood relation and not from maternal side, as is found by the Committee. 4. Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, invited our attention to the observation in the report of the Vigilance Cell, which according to him, finds that Balaji Pandurang Mundewad is not related to the petitioner. It would have been a different matter, if the Committee was to rely on the said observation to answer the point in issue against the petitioner. That is not what happened in the present case. Even if the Committee wanted 4 to discard the caste certificate of Balaji Pandurang Mundewad, on the basis of opinion of the Vigilance Cell, the Committee was oblige to advert to that position in the impugned decision. In absence thereof, it is not open to this Court to assume that such consideration must have weighed with the Committee. Considering the above, we think it appropriate to set aside the impugned decision and in stead, refer the matter before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration of the caste claim of the petitioner, on its own merits. 5. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be allowed to submit any further documents as it is assured by the petitioner through Counsel before this Court that the petitioner will extend full co-operation for early disposal of his caste claim and proceed with the hearing before the Committee only on the basis of material already available on record. Accordingly, the Committee shall dispose of the 5 petitioner's caste claim expeditiously and in any case, not later than THREE MONTHS from today. The petitioner shall appear in the office of the Committee at 11-00 A.M. on 05-02-2010, on which date, the Committee may proceed to assign the date of hearing, as may be advised but ensure that the matter is finally decided within specified time. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/wp440.10