1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5372 OF 2004. PETITIONER: Meena daughter of Shivraj Payak, aged 33 years, Residing Near Sheetala Mata Mandir, Kham Talao, Bhandara, Tahsil and District Bhandara. -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS: 1. Schedule Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur through its Member Secretary, having its Office at Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Amravati, Nagpur-440 001.. 2. Bhandara Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Gandhi Square, Bhandara, Tahsil and District Bhandara, Through its Chief Executive Officer. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court’s or Judge’s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri JT Gilda, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. S. W. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent no.1. Shri MI Dhatrak Advocate for Respondent no.3. Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 25th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Advocate Mr. Chandurkar has pointed out that the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee is dated 21-10-2004. He states that when this 2 view was taken, the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in case of Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar Vs. State of Maharashtra [2004 (1) Mh. L.J. 177] was in force. He states that because of the said view, the petitioner did not lead any positive evidence to show affinity of his caste with Thakur Scheduled Tribe. He invites our attention to the part that Police Vigilance Report in this case is dated 30-09-2002, and the statement of mother of the petitioner is allegedly recorded on 28-2-2003. He states that the copy of the said statement was never supplied to the petitioner. He further adds that as the view of the Division Bench of this Court is upset by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar in [2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250, the petitioner should be given fresh opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate his claim of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. 2. Mrs. S.W. Deshpande Advocate for the respondent no.1 Scrutiny Committee and Advocate 3 Mr. N. W Sambre for the respondent no.2 are opposing the prayers. However, we find that the development in the field of law are not disputed and hence, we find that the petitioner is entitled to an opportunity to lead the evidence to show the affinity. The old document on which the petitioner has placed reliance are dated 1-4-1937. 3. Hence, in these circumstances, the impugned order dated 21-10-2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. 4. The matter is remanded back to the respondent scrutiny committee for deciding afresh giving opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence in accordance with the law to show that he belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribes. 5. As the matter is old, the Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to decide the said claim as early as possible and in any case by 31-5-2010. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the 4 Scrutiny Committee on 22-9-2009 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. 7. Rule accordingly. No costs. 8. Needless to mention that by the interim orders, the services of the petitioner were protected and now as the order invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is set aside, his employer (Respondent No.2) shall not take any further action in the matter till the respondent no.1 decides the caste claim of the petitioner. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/