1 Writ Petition No. 7334 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.7334 Of 2010 * Mangesh s/o Bhaskar Kuntewad, Age 23 years, Occupation : Student, Through his father - Bhaskar s/o Dagadu Kunthewad, Age 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. .. Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2) The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 - deleted. -------- 2 Writ Petition No. 7334 of 2010 CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 17th JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule, made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3) The petitioner assails the order dated 23-6-2010 passed by the respondent No.2 - Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. 4) Shri. Barlinge learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the caste certificate has not been verified by the Scrutiny Committee solely on the ground that the said caste certificate was not issued by the competent authority. Shri. Barlinge submits that the father of the petitioner had migrated to Dhule. The petitioner was born at Dhule. The petitioner had taken education at Dhule. 3 Writ Petition No. 7334 of 2010 School Leaving Certificate was also issued by the school at Dhule. Initially father of the petitioner was issued a caste certificate by competent authority at Jalna in the year 1989. Thereafter, after the father of the petitioner migrated to Dhule, he had surrendered said certificate and the competent authority at Dhule had granted fresh caste certificate to the father of the petitioner. It was erroneous on the part of the Committee to invalidate the claim on the ground that the caste certificate was not issued by competent authority. 5) Shri. Phatke, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Committee submits that, the applicant and his father were permanent residents of Chinchkhed, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad. Even, at the time of verification by the vigilance cell it was mentioned that, the place of birth of the father of the petitioner as Chinchkhed, Taluka Kannad. In such circumstances, the caste certificate issued by the authority at Dhule was improper and not in consonance with the rules. 4 Writ Petition No. 7334 of 2010 6) Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules 2003, reads as under. "5. Grant of Scheduled Tribe Certificate to migrated persons. (1) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. (2) Migration from one district to another district or from the jurisdiction of one Competent Authority to another within the State,- (a) The competent authority if satisfied may issue Scheduled Tribe Certificate in Form C to an applicant who has migrated from one district to another district or from the jurisdiction of one Competent Authority to another, within the State, on production of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to his father or grandfather, by the concerned Competent Authority of that district. (b) The Competent Authority shall issue Scheduled Tribe Certificate in Form C to an applicant of other district from which he had migrated to the present place, on the production of the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to his father or grandfather by the then Competent Authority of the district of his father or grandfather's origin at the time of passing of the first Presidential Order dated the 6th September 1950 or thereafter, for Scheduled Tribes. Explanation,.- For the purpose of this sub-rule "Migrant within the State" means- (i) the persons who have migrated from one district to another district or from the jurisdiction of one Competent Authority to another within the State on or after the first Presidential Order dated the 6th September 1950 for Scheduled Tribes and whose parents had been the ordinary residents of Maharashtra State. 5 Writ Petition No. 7334 of 2010 (ii) in the case of persons born after the first Presidential Order dated 6th September 1950, the place of ordinary residence for the purpose of acquiring Scheduled Tribes status, shall be the place of permanent abode of their father, grandfather at the time of the notification of the Presidential Order for Scheduled Tribes." 7) The said rule provides that on migration the competent authority of the place where the applicant has migrated has got jurisdiction to issue caste certificate. The record unequivocally establishes the fact that the petitioner was born at Dhule. He has also taken his eduction at Dhule. The father of the petitioner in the year 2008 was granted caste certificate by the competent authority at Dhule. In such circumstances when there is overwhelming record to suggest that the father of the petitioner had migrated to Dhule, the competent authority at Dhule had jurisdiction and authority to issue caste certificate, the Scrutiny Committee could not have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the count that, the caste certificate is not issued by the competent authority. 8) In the light of the above, we quash and set aside the order impugned in the present writ petition and relegate the petitioner to the respondent No.2 - Committee. 6 Writ Petition No. 7334 of 2010 The respondent No.2 - Committee shall decide afresh the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9) The North Maharashtra University shall not withhold result of the petitioner on the ground that, the validity certificate is not obtained and declare the same if the petitioner is otherwise eligible. 10) In view of above direction, Shri. Barlinge, the learned counsel for petitioner, seeks leave to delete respondent Nos.3 to 5. Leave to delete said respondents granted. 11) Rule is made absolute in the above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl