1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5274 OF 2009 Shrikant S/o.Digambarrao Bolchetwar, Age-21 years, Occu-Education, R/o.At Post Kundalwadi, Tq.Biloli, 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 the petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3 Mr.P.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 10/09/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the 2 stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India impugns the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of a certificate as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. 3. The petitioner in support of his claim as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, had tendered several documents out of which a document at Sr.No.6 is in respect of the caste certificate issued to Mutyanna Lachmanna whom the petitioner claims to be his grandfather. The Sub Divisional Officer found that the petitioner had not been able to establish that the petitioner belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe and accordingly dismissed the said application. 4. Shri.Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner has tendered before us the copy of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4262/2009 dated 10/07/2009 which is in respect of Nagesh i.e. real brother of the petitioner. Upon perusal of the said judgment, according to us the attention of the learned judges was not invited to the fact that the caste certificate of Shri.Mutyanna Lachmanna did not bear the surname and consequently the petitioner therein failed to establish the relationship of grandfather and grand son. Since it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, the aforesaid judgment rendered by the Division Bench would be restricted to the facts of that case. That 3 judgment can not be pressed into aid by the petitioner for securing a certificate as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. 5. Shri.Vibhute learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner would tender other material before the Sub Divisional Officer to establish that the petitioner is the grand son of Shri.Mutyanna Lachmanna. In the light of that therefore we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for a decision afresh in accordance with Law. We afford a liberty to the petitioner to produce such documents on which the petitioner proposes to rely. This be done by the petitioner on or before 24/09/2009. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor on 24/09/2009 and direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to expeditiously decide the question of issuance of certificate to the petitioner. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5274-09