{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5617 OF 2009 Anil Nagnath Kodel, R/o Biloli, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded Minor Through natural guardian / father Nagnath Gangaram Koel R/o Biloli, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Dy. Director (R) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatage, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 27th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned {2} counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad dated 30.03.2009 in an appeal thereby confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 18.02.2009 by which he had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of a caste certificate. 3. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, seeking caste certificate claiming to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had submitted various documents along with the application, including the caste validity certificate issued in favour of his cousin namely K.Subhash K.Linganna and his affidavit. The Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 18.02.2009, rejected the application of the petitioner by observing that the documents produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to issue caste certificate in his favour. It further appears that being aggrieved by the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 30.03.2009, confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. These orders are impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. During the course of submissions, learned counsel for the {3} petitioner drawn our attention to the caste validity certificated issued in favour of cousin of the petitioner. However, it appears that the genealogy produced by the petitioner along with the affidavit of his cousin K.Subhash K.Linganna, is not proper. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures that he would produce proper genealogy before the Sub Divisional Officer, if the matter is remanded back for reconsideration. We accept this submission. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 30.03.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee and dated 18.02.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. We hereby direct the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor within two weeks from today and produce proper genealogy and other additional documents, if any. We hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of fresh genealogy and other additional documents, if any, filed by the petitioner and to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5617-09