1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7131 OF 2010 Smita d/o Sahebrao Yerkalwad, Age 27 years, Occu.Education, R/o Narsi, Taluka Naigaon, District Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Scheduled Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 9th August 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 18.12.2009 rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner and the order dated 25.2.2010 passed by the Scrutiny Committee in appeal. 3. The petitioner, who was desirous of obtaining a caste certificate as belonging to Mannerwarlu – Scheduled Tribe, submitted an application to the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. The petitioner relied upon the caste certificate issued to the real brother of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner did not submit an affidavit to establish the relationship between the petitioner and the certificate holder. The Sub Divisional Officer, therefore, rejected the application on that ground. The appeal filed by the petitioner also came to be rejected. 4. According to us, another opportunity needs to be given to the petitioner of submitting the affidavit and establishing the relationship between the petitioner and the certificate holder. We, accordingly, quash and set aside the impugned orders, remit the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for a decision afresh, in accordance with law, giving an opportunity to the petitioner of submitting the affidavit as indicated above. The affidavit to be 3 filed by the petitioner within two weeks from today and we further direct the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, within two weeks of the petitioner submitting the affidavit. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/7131.10wp)