1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4314 OF 2006 (Kum. Sangita Vasantrao Narnavre vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committe & Ors.) AND WRIT PETITION NO. 4326 OF 2006 (Kum. Preeti Vasantrao Narnavre vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committe & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 21, 2009. Heard Shri Parosdkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri Mirza, learned AGP for respondents No.2 & 3. Both the petitioners are sisters and Caste claim decided by Respondent No.1 - Caste Scrutiny Committee is by the common order. The Limited grievance made by Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage is on two counts. He states that though Rule 12(4) & (5) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Certificates Rules, 2003, rules framed under Act No. 23 of 2001, required Vigilance Cell to record statements of parents or guardian or then the petitioner - candidate herself, the Vigilance Cell in present matter has recorded statement of younger brother of the petitioners’ father i.e. their 2 uncle. He contends that thus, these sub-rules have been violated. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2453 of 2005 (Digambar Domaji Wagh vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Anr.). He further states that in any case, it was not necessary at that time to adduce any positive evidence about affinity because of the view then prevailing and he relies upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004 (1) Mh. L.J. 177. He states that that the view has been upset by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar, reported at 2007 (2) Mh. L.J. 250 and that judgment is dated 31.10.2006. Shri Sambre, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned AGP for respondent No.2, however, oppose these arguments. They contend that though vigilance authorities recorded statements of uncle of the petitioners, when opportunity was given to the petitioners they could have brought in positive evidence to show traits and customs. That has not been done. They further argue that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the circumstances, is of no assistance. We find that the order of Scrutiny Committee in these matters is dated 14.6.2006 and it has been forwarded to the petitioners on 14.7.2006. It is thus prior to 31.10.2006 and on this date, the view of this 3 Court that a document prescribing particular caste which was recognized as Scheduled Tribe, further enquiry into affinity was necessary, was prevailing. The view has been set aside on 31.10.2006. We, therefore, find substance in the second contention of Shri Parsodkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, in the present petitions. Therefore, in order to give the petitioners appropriate opportunity to bring on record positive evidence about affinity and anthropological traits and customs, we quash and set aside the order dated 14.6.2006 and remand the matter to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the said purpose. As the matter is old, the Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case by 30th April 2010. The petitioners to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 21st September 2009 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.