FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5403 OF 2011 "Satyabhama Gopalrao Golmalu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. M.B. Gastgar, Advocate holding for Mr. G.J. Karne, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, AGP for respondents. CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 9th AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT [ D.B. BHOSALE, J.]:- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondents waive service. The petition is taken up for haring by consent of learned counsel for the parties. 2] By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 30/8/2010 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By this order, the petitioner's caste claim has been invalidated. The basis challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the Committee which decided the caste claim was not legally constituted. IN other words, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Member Secretary, namely, Shri B.V. Shirurkar, was the Law Officer and he was given additional charge of Deputy Director FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5403 OF 2011 "Satyabhama Gopalrao Golmalu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 (Research). He submits that the committee should consist of the Director, the Joint Director, and the Deputy Director (Research). He further submits that the Committee which decided the petitioner's tribe claim, was not constituted as per clause 4 of the Notification dated 4.6.2003 issued by the Tribal Development Department of Government of Maharashtra. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that we need not examine this issue and record our reasons for allowing this Writ Petition and they all have agreed for setting aside this order and directing the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee to decide petitioner's claim afresh within a time frame. 3] Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon the order passed by this court dated 30/3/2011, in W.P. No 8202/2010 and submitted that in the similar circumstances, that petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the scrutiny committee for its hearing afresh. 2] We have perused the said order. It appears from the order, the grounds of challenge in that petition and in the present writ petition, namely, in respect of the constitution of the committee, are similar. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by the following order :- FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5403 OF 2011 "Satyabhama Gopalrao Golmalu Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 . I] The order dated 30/8/2010 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad is set aside and the matter is remanded to the existing Committee at Aurangabad. The said Committee shall decide the petitioner's caste claim afresh on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of receipt of this order. II] All contentions of the parties are kept open. The parties are directed to appear before the Committee on 25th August, 2011, with copy of this order. 6] Rule made absolute in the above terms. [S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/-