1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7005 OF 2004 Sheshrao s/o Gangaram Suradkar, Age: 44 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Tilak Nagar, Near Water Tank Sillod, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim Through its Member Secretary and the Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Aurangabad. 4. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad. 5. The Tahsildar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1,3 & 5. Shri. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri.R.D. Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 14TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to "Koli Malhar", Scheduled Tribe. He is serving with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. By an order dated 26-08-2004 the petitioner's caste claim is invalidated by the Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claim, Aurangabad. 3. Amongst other grounds, the petitioner submits that real brother of the petitioner namely Bhagwan Gangaram Suradkar was issued certificate of validity on 16-04-2009 by the Scheduled Tribe 3 Certificate Scrutiny Committee. 4. On the basis of original record, we find that it is doubtful whether Bhagwan Gangaram Suradkar is real brother of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to establish relationship between him and Bhagwan. It is submitted that the petitioner's school record is contrary to the petitioner's claim. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has produced record in respect of his other relations, which support the claim of the petitioner. He further submitted that as the petitioner's real brother got validity certificate, petitioner's claim requires to be considered afresh. 6. In the genealogy submitted by the petitioner, it has been shown that the name of his real brother is Bhagwan but the question raised by the Counsel for the Scrutiny Committee requires to 4 be seriously considered as to whether certificate of validity issued in favour of Bhagwan is issued to the real brother of the petitioner. This requires some evidence to the satisfaction of the Committee. 7. Considering the facts of the case, we find that the claim of the petitioner is required to be considered afresh, in the light of overall facts and circumstances of the case. The Committee shall specifically deal with the issue as to whether the certificate of validity granted in the name of Bhagwan Gangaram Suradkar is granted to the real brother of the petitioner. To give further opportunity to the petitioner, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee. 8. The impugned order dated 26-08-2004 passed by the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the 5 Committee on 2nd August, 2010 at about 11-00 a.m. The Committee shall dispose of the matter finally within three months from 2nd August, 2010. All issues are kept open to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner is entitled to lead additional evidence and file additional documents, if any. 9. In the light of above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute on the above terms. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/JUL10/wp7005.04