1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4890 OF 2009 Shrinivas Balaji Kantewar, Age-20 years, Occu-Education, R/o. At-Post Degloor, Tq.Degloor, Dist. Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through secretary to 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.V.H.Ghadge, 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 : 29/07/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 2 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of respective counsels, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad dated 30/03/2009 in case No.Appeal/NAN/61/2009, which arises out of the order passed by The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 03/02/2009. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner followed by the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the respondents. During the course of arguments, all the learned counsels taken us through the documents annexed with the writ petition. 4. To consider these submissions advanced across the bar, it is necessary to consider the facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition. On 20/11/2008, the applicant petitioner has filed an application for issuance of caste certificate to The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor as he claimed that he belongs to Manerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. Alongwith this application, he has submitted various documents including the affidavit of his cousin sister Shobha Iranna alongwith her affidavit showing the genealogy and her 3 relation with the petitioner. In its order dated 03/02/2009, after appreciation of the documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner, the learned Sub Divisional Officer concluded that the documentary evidence tendered is not sufficient to issue the caste certificate. This order was challenged before the Scrutiny Committee in appeal No. 61/2009 and the members of the Scrutiny Committee confirmed the order passed by The Learned Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and dismissed the appeal, which orders are under challenge by way of this writ petition. 5. During the course of submissions across the bar, our attention is drawn by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner towards the genealogy furnished alongwith the affidavit of Shobha Iranna, but assured that this genealogy is not a detailed genealogy and seeks leave that he may be permitted to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor with the complete genealogy of the family of petitioner and the caste validity certificate holder Shobha Iranna. We accept this request of the learned advocate for petitioner and remitted the matter back to the competent authority i.e. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor with liberty to present petitioner to tender the additional evidence i.e. the genealogy showing the relation between the caste validity certificate holder and the petitioner. Thus we set aside the order passed by The Scrutiny Committee dated 30/03/2009 and the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 03/02/2009, and remitted the matter back to Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor for re-consideration in the light of the 4 additional evidence to be produced by the petitioner. 6. The petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor within the period of 2 weeks from today or from the communication of this order and The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to pass the orders in accordance with Law considering the additional evidence laid by the petitioner within the period of 3 months thereafter. 6. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above. The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp4890-09