1 WP 4616/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4616 OF 2002 * Devidas s/o Balaji Mupade ] Age 24 years, ] Occupation Student ] R/o Mangal Sangvi, ] Taluka Kandhar, ] District Nanded. ] ... Petitioner Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra. ] ] 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste ] Certificate Verification ] Committee, M.S. Aurangabad ] Division, Aurangabad, ] Through its Chairman / ] Director. ] ] 3) The Special Land Acquisition] Officer, Krishna Vally ] Development Corporation ] Nanded. ] ] 4) The Collector, Collectorate,] Nanded. ] ] 5) The Marathwada Agriculture ] University, University ] Campus, Basmat Road, ] Parbhani, ] Through Registrar. ] ] 6) Maharashtra Public Service ] Commission, Bank of India ] Bldg., 3rd Floor, ] Mahatma Gandhi Road ] 2 WP 4616/2002 Hutatma Chowk, ] Mumbai – 400 001. ] ] 7) The Inspector General ] of Police, ] Shahid Bhagatsing Marg, ] Kulaba, Mumbai 400 001. ] .. Respondents. ------- Shri. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. Umakant K. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1,3 and 4. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 10th JULY 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule, by consent of the learned counsel for the parties rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal. 3) The learned counsel Shri. Golegaonkar submits that, the caste claim of the real sister and cousin of the petitioner was verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and Validity 3 WP 4616/2002 Certificates were issued in their favour. 4) Learned counsel Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, appearing for the Scrutiny Committee submits that affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee. It is found that the Committee had issued notice to the sister and father of the petitioner as the Committee prima facie was not satisfied with the evidence led by the relatives of the petitioner. Probably, the counsel submits that the Committee even may reopen the cases of the father and sister of the petitioner on that ground. Apart from that learned counsel Shri. Golegaonkar submits that in view of the petitioner’s near relatives obtaining validity certificates the petitioner's case will have to be considered afresh by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 5) In the light of the statement made above, we find that the matter will have to be remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for considering the case afresh. The Committee shall 4 WP 4616/2002 verify the caste claim of the petitioner along with the proceedings of the petitioner's sister, father and cousin. The Committee is free to reopen all the issues and decide the caste claim of the petitioner and pass orders strictly in accordance with the evidence on record. 6) The order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 24-7-2002 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee for verification of the claim of the petitioner afresh. The Committee shall decide the caste claim of the petitioner within four months from today. All issues are kept open. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 29th July 2009 at 11.00 a.m. 7) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.4616.02