1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5916 OF 2009 Rahul s/o Shankarrao Kalmurge, Age: 22 years, Occ: Student, R/o. At Post Biloli, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Through its Dy. Director (Research) Aurangabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded. .. Respondents ... Mr. A.H. Koralkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 3. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2. ... CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 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. Heard Counsel for the parties. This petition takes exception to the orders passed dated 30-03-2009 by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad and dated 31-01-2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor District Nanded, rejecting the petitioner's application for issuance of the caste certificate, as belonging to "Mannerwarlu community" which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. The Sub Divisional Officer being the competent authority rejected the petitioner's application inter alia on the ground that in the record against the grandmother's name, it was mentioned as "Munnarwar" and not as "Munnerwarlu". Whereas, 3 Scrutiny Committee has merely noted that it has examined all the aspects and find that the conclusion reached by the Sub Divisional Officer is satisfactory. Significantly, the petitioner in support of his caste claim, not only relied on the affidavit of his father mentioning that he belonged to "Mannerwarlu community" but also amongst other documents, inquiry report of the Tahasildar which supported the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. Indeed, the competent authority has adverted to these documents but has merely recorded its conclusion that the concerned document is inadmissible. Since the matter was taken to the Scrutiny Committee, it was expected of the Scrutiny Committee, while considering the appeal of the petitioner, to analyse the grievance of the petitioner in greater detail and in particular, with regard to the efficacy of the documents which are pressed into service by the petitioner in support of his caste claim. 4 The Caste Scrutiny Committee has disposed of the appeal in effect by a non speaking order, by merely observing that the opinion of the Sub Divisional Officer was found to be satisfactory. 4. In the circumstances, instead of analysing the efficacy of each of the document pressed into service by the petitioner, for the first time by us in the present petition, we think it appropriate to set aside the impugned decision of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee dated 30-03-2009 and instead restore the appeal to the file to its original number. The Caste Scrutiny Committee should consider the same on its own merits, in accordance with law. All questions raised in the petition are left open to be answered by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the appeal expeditiously, in any case, not later than THREE MONTHS from today. The petitioner shall appear in the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee at 11-00 a.m. on 15-02-2010 and the Committee can 5 fix the matter for hearing so as to ensure that the same is finally disposed of within the specified time. The petitioner shall extend necessary co-operation for early disposal before the Committee. 5. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/FEB10/wp5916.09