1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 1365 OF 2011 (Ku. Manda Namdeo Bagde .vs. The Divisional Caste Verification Committee No.3, Nagpur and Ors.) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 14, 2011. Heard Mr.U.S.Dastane, Adv. for the petitioner, Mr.V.A.Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 5, Mr.M.I.Dhatrak, Adv. for respondent no.2 and Mr.P. Marpakwar, Adv. for respondent no.3. Mr.U.S.Dastane, Adv. for the petitioner has invited our attention to various documents to show that the petitioner could not have secured basic caste documents from the Office of Collector at Nagpur in the regular course. However, according to him, in a hurry to contest elections, just within a period of three days, that certificate has been procured by supplying incorrect information. Counsel for respondent no.4 is disputing this. According to him, the handwritten 2 portion in the application and affidavit needs to be relied upon and the printed portion thereof, which is to the contrary, needs to be ignored. After perusal of the documents shown to us, we find that some disputed questions arise. Section 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2000 framed under the Act No.XXIII of 2001 grants the petitioner an opportunity of making complaint to the Committee which has issued it. If such complaint is made, obligation is cast upon that Committee to decide it within a reasonable period. We find that all the disputed questions can, thus, be looked into by the statutory Authority in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, with a liberty to the petitioner to make such complaints/grievance before respondent no.1/Committee, we dispose of the petition. Though Section 7 does not specifically prescribe any time limit in this respect, Rule 7 dealing with similar complaint in relation to Scheduled Tribe certificates prescribe time limit of six months. We, therefore, expect respondent 3 no.1/Committee to decide the complaint, if made by the petitioner within the said period of six months. Needless to mention that respondent no.4 shall be given necessary opportunity to meet the complaint in accordance with law. JUDGE JUDGE jais