1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8334 OF 2006 Jaykumar @ Jayesh S/o Divakarprasad Tharewal, Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Pardeshi Gally, Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna. .. .. Petitioner Versus 01. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 02. The SC, VJ, NT, OBC and SBC Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Through Divisional Social Welfare Officer) Aurangabad. 03. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna. 04. The Municipal Council, Bhokardan, Dist. Jalna, through its Chief Officer. 05. The Collector, Jalna. 2 06. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondents No. 1, 3, 5 and 6. Miss. M. B. Vaishnav, Advocate h/f Shri U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] : . Heard. 02. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with consent of parties. 03. We have perused the original record and heard submissions of learned counsel appearing for parties. The original record like Hakka Nondani Patrak, Khasra Pahani Patrak, school record of the petitioner is made available for perusal in view of notice issued by this Court. 04. Learned counsel Shri Talekar submitted that though the 3 petitioner submitted voluminous documentary evidence, the scrutiny committee rejected the case of the petitioner without appreciating the documents minutely and carefully, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the observations made by the Committee that in old revenue documents, the caste of the petitioner was mentioned as Pardeshi, though there is no column of caste and also the observations are unreasonable and exhibits total non application of mind. 05. Learned Assistant Government Pleader supported the view of the Committee. The intervenor also submitted that the petitioner has failed to provide the evidence having probative value. 06. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties. Perused original record and the order passed by the Committee. 07. We find that Committee is required to appreciate documents and the evidence led by the petitioner and collected by the Committee afresh. The entries occurring in the revenue record have to be carefully examined before coming to the 4 definite conclusion by the Committee. The petitioner has made out case for remand of the matter for fresh appraisal and appreciation of record. With this view the matter is required to be remanded back. 08. Learned counsel Shri Talekar submits that the petitioner be permitted to lead additional evidence if any. The petitioner is entitled to lead any other evidence before the Committee. 09. In this view of the matter, the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2/Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2/Committee for fresh consideration. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 03rd May, 2010. The Committee shall give appropriate opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter reasoned order shall be passed within three months from 03.05.2010. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] bsb/Mar.10