1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.199 OF 2010 Anil s/o Balanna Kamalallu, R/o-Gaddigudam, Chavani, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad, 3) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R) & Member Secretary, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 2010 Anil s/o Balanna Kamalallu, R/o-Gaddigudam, Chavani, Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. 2 VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad, 3) The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R) & Member Secretary, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.B.R. Survase Advocate for Petitioners in both the Petitions. Mr.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both the Petitions. Mr.P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.3 in both the Petitions. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 18TH JANUARY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the 3 learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioners in respective Petitions have challenged the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer as also the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee rejecting the appeals preferred by the Petitioner. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the applications preferred by the Petitioners for getting certificate of "Mannerwarlu-27", Scheduled Tribe. The Sub Divisional Officer while rejecting the said applications, recorded two reasons, firstly in the Petitioners' father's school leaving certificate (admission dated 21/6/1979), there is entry pertaining to caste "Telgu" and not "Mannerwarlu". Secondly, the Petitioners have not submitted any evidence before the competent authority, in support of their claim of 4 "Mannerwarlu-27" Scheduled Tribe by way of documents prior to 1950. The order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, which is verbatim in both the cases, reads thus: "Sub:- Issuance of Certificate of "Mannerwarlu-27" Scheduled Tribe. You have submitted an application for getting certificate of "Mannerwarlu-27" scheduled Tribe. In your father's School Leaving Certificate (Admission dt. 21/6/1979) there is entry pertaining to caste is mentioned as "Telgu" and not Mannerwarlu. Conclusion: In the case of every person for assessment of the documents it is necessary to scrutinize the cases on prior to on which the caste included in the backward class category. It is necessary to submit before the competent authorities, the claim of certificate "Mannerwarlu-27" 5 scheduled tribe documents prior to 1950. But you have not submitted any document evidence for issuance of "Mannerwarlu-27" scheduled tribe hence your application is rejected. There is remedy of appeal is provided as per the Maharashtra Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of ) Certificate Act and Rules, 2003, within 30 days from the order. Received U/s.8 of the said Act before appellate authority as stated in the Govt. Gazette. Sd/ Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad." 4. The Petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Scrutiny Committee, who in turn, rejected the appeal by following the reasons given by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The order reads thus: 6 " O R D E R The appellant Shree. Kamalallu Anil Balanna At. Post. Chavni, Tq. Aurangabad,Dist-Aurangabad requested to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad to issue a Tribe Certificate to his daughter Namely Kum. Kamalallu Kamini Anil as belong to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe, but the Sub-Divisional officer, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad refused to issue the same vide their order dated 05.08.2009 and therefore the Appellant filed an appeal before the Committee against the said order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad vide application dated 31.08.2009. The Scrutiny Committee deeply 7 observed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad and the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant along with the proposal and the Committee have come to the conclusion that, the Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Dist-Aurangabad is satisfactory and therefore the Committee is agreed with the decision taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer Aurangabad in the said case and Hence, the said appeal is rejected." 5. Having considered the rival submissions, in our opinion, neither the approach of the Sub- Divisional Officer nor that of the Scrutiny Committee can stand the test of the judicial scrutiny. Indeed, the Sub-Divisional Officer has noted that the father's school leaving certificate 8 mentions the caste as "Telgu" and not "Mannerwarlu-". However, the Petitioner was relying on the document in the form of service book of the Petitioner's father, which mentions his caste as "Mannerwarlu-" (S.T.). No reference is made to the said document. In view of this document, the Sub-Divisional Officer could have issued the caste certificate, which would be subject to the verification by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Sub-Divisional Officer has rejected the request of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to submit "the claim of certificate Mannerwarlu-27, schedule tribe documents prior to 1950". 6. Learned counsel for the Respondents, in all fairness, accepts that there is no law which mandates that only on the production of tribe documents prior to 1950, caste certificate can be issued to the incumbent. It would be ideal if the tribe documents prior to 1950 were to be produced by the Petitioner in support of his caste claim. 9 That may have probative value. But non production of such document does not mean that the other documents which are produced by the Petitioner can be completely discarded, which is the approach of the opinion recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Accordingly, in our opinion, the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer on both the counts, cannot be sustained. 7. Insofar as the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it has merely agreed with the opinion of the Sub-Divisional Officer without recording any finding of its own. The Scrutiny Committee has not even bothered to analyze the documents produced by the Petitioner, though it was dealing with the statutory appeal preferred by the Petitioner. The approach of the Scrutiny Committee to say the least, is perverse. 8. In the circumstances, both the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as Scrutiny Committee are set aside and instead, the Sub 10 Divisional Officer is directed to reconsider the application of the Petitioners afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law. That be done expeditiously and in any case not later than EIGHT WEEKS from the date of receipt of this order. . Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp199.10