1 wp6948.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6948 OF 2009 Dattatraya S/o Bapurao Parde, Age : 24 years, Occ : Nil, R/o Tuppa, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded. ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, Through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENT ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner. Shri R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 13th July, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the "Mannerwarlu" scheduled tribe. His tribe claim has been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad on several grounds. 3. The main criticism of the learned Advocate for the petitioner with respect to the impugned order is that the home enquiry and Vigilance Cell enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Maharashtra 2 wp6948.09 Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 i.e. the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003. The learned Advocate points out that the Vigilance Committee claims to have issued letters to the petitioner and his parents to be present in its office in order to establish his tribe claim. He submits that this is not contemplated under the Rules as a home enquiry has to be conducted. 4. Rule 12 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee on receipt of the application from a person for validation of his tribe claim. When, the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary evidence produced by the applicant, it has to forward the application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school, home and other enquiries. The Vigilance Officer is expected to visit the local place of residence and the original place from which the applicant hails and usually resides, or in the case of migration, to the town or city or place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer is expected to personally verify and collect all the facts with regard to the social status claimed by the applicant or his parents or the guardian, as the case may be. 3 wp6948.09 The Vigilance Officer is also expected to examine the parents or guardian or the applicant in order to verify the applicant's tribe claim. 5. In the present case, it is obvious that the procedure prescribed in Rule 12(3) and 12(5) has not been followed by the Committee. The procedure prescribed is mandatory. The home enquiry must be conducted by visiting the home of the applicant i.e. not only in the place, which he normally resides but the place from which he original hails. In the present case, it appears that the Committee has examined only the petitioner's relative and not his parents. The reason for not examining them is that they did not appear before the Committee. This is not contemplated in the Rules. The Vigilance Officer must verify all the facts and social status by personally visiting the place of residence. It is now well settled that the home enquiry is extremely necessary and mandatory, as it aids in establishing the candidate's affinity towards the particular tribe or caste of which he claims to be member. The applicant's parents are also to be questioned with respect to the traits, characteristics, rituals, etc. of the tribe. This enquiry is specially significant when the family has moved to different urban areas as a result of which often the younger generation often loses contact with other members of the tribe. 4 wp6948.09 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. We have not considered the other grounds of challenge, which are stated in the Petition, as the fact that no home enquiry has been conducted in accordance with Rule is glaring and results in vitiating the enquiry. 7. The Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute, accordingly. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 16th August, 2011. The Scrutiny Committee will ensure that the home enquiry is conducted as prescribed in the Rules and various judgements. The Vigilance Cell Report consequent upon such enquiry, shall be furnished to the petitioner, before the Scrutiny Committee decides his tribe claim. Other contentions raised in the Petition are kept open for the petitioner to raise before the Committee. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) ga s/wp6948.09