1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7236 OF 2010 Shabana Begum d/o. Mohammed Sayeed, Age 30 yrs., Occu. Household, Permanent Address Juna Bazar, Begum Jani Masjid, House No. 1-22-572, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad division, Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No. 2. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 7242 OF 2010 Hina Parveen d/o. Mohammed Sayeed Age 25 yrs., Occu. Service, Permanent Address Juna Bazar, Begum Jani Masjid, House No. 1-22-572, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader, High Court at Aurangabad. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad division, Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mrs. A.N. Ansari, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent No. 1. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 15th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER B. R. GAVAI, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Both these petitions challenge the decision of the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee dated 29th of September 2007, vide which the claim of the petitioners of belonging to "Raj", which is notified as Scheduled Tribe, came to be rejected. 3. It appears that the claim of the petitioners as well as their elder sister namely Asma Parveen was considered by the respondent No. 2 - Committee on the same date and by the judgments and orders dated 29th of September 2007, the same came to be invalidated. 4. One of the sisters namely Asma Parveen approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6199/2007. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 28.11.2008, by detailed reasoning and upon appreciation of the entire material placed on behalf of the petitioner in the said petition, found that the decision of the Scrutiny Committee regarding invalidation of the claim of the petitioner, is not sustainable in law. 3 5. In is not in dispute, the material in support of the claim of the present petitioners as well as their real sister Asma Parveen is the same. The Division Bench of this Court, by giving detailed reasoning, has found, the claim of the present petitioners' sister of belonging to "Raj" Scheduled Tribe is valid and that the Apex Court has dismissed the S.L.P. filed by the respondents vide order dated 12th of July 2010. We see no reason, as to why the claim of the petitioners shall not be validated as belonging to "Raj", which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. As a matter of fact and on the ground of judicial propriety also, we will be required to do so. 6. In that view of the matter we quash and set aside the judgments and orders dated 29th of September 2007 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee and direct the respondent No. 2 - Committee to issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner, validating their claim as belonging to "Raj", which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp7236.10