(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 7757 OF 2010 Sunil S/o. Moglaji Gundalwar Age 27 years, Occ. Nil R/o. At-post-Degloor, Tq. Degloor Dist. Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor District Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 and 3. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. (2) ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 28TH OCTOBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 22nd December, 2009, passed by the respondent no.2 thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of certificate, certifying that the petitioner belongs to "Koli Mahadeo", Scheduled Tribe, and the order dated 30th January, 2010, passed by the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 3. This Court, in number of cases, has held that the inquiry, that is contemplated at the stage of grant of caste (tribe) certificate, is not a detail inquiry, as is contemplated at the stage of considering a candidate for issuing caste (tribe) validity certificate. The inquiry, that is required to be conducted at the stage of grant of caste (tribe) certificate, requires a candidate to prima facie establish that he belongs to particular caste (tribe) on (3) the basis of evidence submitted in support of the claim. 4. In the present case, we find that the petitioner had submitted the material which was sufficient to form a prima facie opinion that he belongs to “Koli Mahadeo” Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate issued in favour of his father, brother and cousin brother, certifying that they belong to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe were also submitted on record. Not only this, but the Circle Officer had also recommended the case of the petitioner. 5. In these circumstances, we find that it was not justifiable on the part of respondent no.3, to reject the application of the petitioner for issuance of caste (tribe) certificate. It was also not justifiable on the part of respondent no.2, to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner. We find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case that he belongs to "Koli Mahadeo", Scheduled Tribe and as such, the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 22nd December 2009, passed by the respondent no.3, and the order dated 30th January, 2010, passed by the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee, are quashed and set aside. (4) (ii) The respondent no.3 is directed to issue certificate to the petitioner, certifying that he belongs to "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. (iii) However, it is made clear that the observations made herein above are only for the purposes of considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of caste (tribe) certificate and that the Committee shall not be influenced by the same at the stage of considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of caste (tribe) validity certificate. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( A.A. SAYED ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp7757.10