1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5273 OF 2009 Balaji S/o.Hullaji Mamilwar, Age­20 years, Occu­Education, R/o. At Post. Degloor, Tq.Degloor, Dist : Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Тhe State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad, Through its Dy.Director (R), Aurangabad 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, District : Nanded RESPONDENTS Mr.S.M.Vibhute, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 13/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 2 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission. 2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner/applicant has challenged the judgment and order dated 29/04/2009 passed in appeal No. 130/2009 by The Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad by which the Scrutiny Committee has upheld the order passed by The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded by which the application of the applicant petitioner dated 29/07/2008 filed for the issuance of caste certificate as the applicant petitioner claims that he belongs to “Mannervarlu” was rejected. 3. The facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as ­ on 29/07/2008, the petitioner applicant has filed an application for issuance of caste certificate as the applicant petitioner claims that he belongs to Mannerwarlu. Alongwith the application, applicant has furnished various documents including the school leaving certificate of the father of the applicant petitioner in which caste of the father of the applicant was mentioned as Mannerwarlu. The petitioner has also submitted school leaving certificate of the real sister of the applicant in which the caste was shown as “Mannerwarlu”. In his order dated 04/03/2009, The Sub Divisional officer, Degloor has concluded that the documents submitted on behalf of the applicant/petitioner are not sufficient to issue the caste certificate in favour of the applicant hence rejected 3 the said application. This order was challenged by preferring the appeal before the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad and vide its judgment dated 29/04/2009, the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad has upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, the impugned order in the present writ petition. 4. In this background, heard the respective counsels appearing for petitioner and the respondents. During the course of arguments, it is brought to our notice that the genealogy is furnished on behalf of the petitioner alongwith affidavit of one Suresh Vitthal Bonlawar, but it is not the clear genealogy. The applicant petitioner prayed to remit the matter back before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor as according to him, the petitioner intends to adduce the additional evidence alongwith the genealogy. We accept this request. Accordingly we quash and set aside the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and the order passed by The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and remit the matter back to The Sub Divisional Officer Degloor for re­consideration in the light of additional evidence to be laid on behalf of the petitioner applicant. 5. The petitioner applicant to appear before Sub Divisional Officer Degloor within the period of 2 weeks from today or from the date of receipt of writ of communication of this order to The Sub Divisional Officer Degloor. Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to consider the additional evidence laid on behalf of petitioner applicant and to 4 decide the application afresh in the light of the documentary evidence already on record and the additional evidence to be laid and the application to be decided in accordance with Law within the period of 2 months thereafter. 6. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. Writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp5273­09