1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5314 OF 2009 Santosh S/o. Laxmanrao Bodhankar, Age-Minor, Occu-Education, R/o.Kundalwadi, Tq.Biloli, District-Nanded through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri.Shivaji S/o.Sayanna Kondawar, Age-29 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.As above. 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.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatake, learned counsel for respondent no.2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5317 OF 2009 2 Sumant S/o. Laxmanrao Bodhankar, Age-Minor, Occu-Education, R/o.Kundalwadi, Tq.Biloli, District-Nanded through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri.Shivaji S/o.Sayanna Kondawar, Age-29 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.As above. 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.K.B.Chaudhary, 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 : 14/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. Both these writ petitions are arises out of the same set of facts and involved the common question of Law, hence to be disposed of by 3 common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, both the writ petitions are finally heard at the stage of admission. 3. By filing both these writ petitions under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad in Appeal Nos. 51/2009 and 52/2009 of 27/04/2009 by which the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor on the applications filed by the petitioners/applicant were rejected vide order dated 28/01/2009 and 27/01/2009 and remanded the matters back for re- consideration to the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. By the respective orders, the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor has rejected the applications submitted by the applicants for issuance of caste certificate as the petitioners claimed that they belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. 4. The facts which gave rise to file both these writ petitions can be summarized as – the petitioners/applicants in both these writ petitions are real brothers. Both of them have filed separate applications on 21/10/2008 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor for issuance of caste certificate as they claimed that they belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. Alongwith these applications, they have produced various documents including the 4 caste certificate issued in the name of their father Laxman Gangadhar Bodhankar. The caste of their father was recorded in his service book and also in the school leaving certificate. The affidavit filed by the father of the petitioners was also submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. While rejecting both these applications, the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor has observed that the documents produced by both these petitioners/applicants are not sufficient to hold that they belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe and rejected both these applications. The order of rejection of both these applications were challenged before the Scrutiny Committee by preferring appeals by the petitioners which were numbered as 51/2009 and 52/2009 as stated earlier. Vide judgment and order dated 27/04/2009, the members of the Scrutiny Committee have remanded the matters back for fresh consideration before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor which orders are impugned in the present writ petitions. 5. Heard respective counsels for petitioner and the respondents in the light of above referred facts and the documents tendered before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. The challenge to the impugned orders passed by the Committee are two fold. First, in the law the members of the Scrutiny Committee have no jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for its re-consideration. Second, on perusal of the documents produced on behalf of the petitioner i.e. the caste certificate issued in the name of father of the petitioner and the other record, it is sufficient to hold that the sons 5 are entitled for the caste of their father and the Scrutiny Committee to allow the appeals and to issue the caste certificate as claimed for instead of the members of the scrutiny committee remanded the matter back for fresh consideration to the Sub Divisional Officer which is a patent error in law. 6. Considering these submissions across the bar, one fact is clear in Law that the members of the Scrutiny Committee have no jurisdiction to remand the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for re-consideration. Thus the order passed by the Members of the Scrutiny committee is without having jurisdiction. 7. As the sons are entitled for the caste of their father and the petitioners have produced the caste certificate issued to their father by the competent authority alongwith other documents is sufficient to hold that the petitioners are entitled for the caste certificate as claimed for. 8. In the premise, we quash and set aside the orders passed by the members of the Scrutiny Committee as well as the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, the orders impugned in these writ petitions and we hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue caste certificate to the petitioners as they belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe forthwith. 9. Needless to say that the caste certificate so issued would be 6 subject to verification by the competent Scrutiny Committee. 10. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above, and accordingly the writ petitions stand disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp5314-09