(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3913 OF 1994 Chandrashekhar s/o. Pundlikrao Kalse, Aged : 36 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. 102, Maharashtra Housing Board Colony, Peer Bazar, Osmanpura, Aurangabad, At present : At Bhoom, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32). 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, M.S., Nasik. 3. The Addl. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 4. The Commissioner, Tribal Development, M.S., Nasik. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. D.S. Mali, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner challenges the communication at Exhibit "D", dated 4th October 1994, addressed by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner, thereby informing the petitioner, that the respondent no.4 proposes to re-examine the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate to that effect was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad. The respondent no. 2 / Committee found the claim of the petitioner to be invalid. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner to the appellate authority i.e. Additional (3) Commissioner. The said appeal has been allowed by the respondent no.3 by a reasoned order dated 21st August 1993. Thereafter, the impugned communication has been sent by the respondent no.4. 3. Mr. D.S. Mali, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent no.4 has totally erred in issuing the impugned communication. He submits that at the relevant time, the Additional Commissioner was an appellate authority and the appellate authority having upheld the validity of the petitioner's tribe claim, the respondent no.4 had no jurisdiction again to open the matter. He, therefore, submits that the impugned communication is liable to be set aside. 4. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, appeal against the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was provided to the Divisional Commissioner. In the present case, the appellate authority after considering the material on record, has validated the tribe claim of the petitioner. At the relevant time, respondent no.4 had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. When the appellate authority i.e. Divisional Commissioner had adjudicated the claim of the petitioner, we find that the impugned communication issued by the respondent no.4 was wholly without jurisdiction. No doubt, that the petition is only against a (4) notice issued to the petitioner. However, if an authority by the notice assumes the jurisdiction which is not vested in it, it would be duty of this court to quash the proceedings which are ab initio void. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "A". There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp3913