{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5673 OF 2009 Ajay Rajesh Kaslod, R/o Biloli, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded Minor Through natural guardian / father Rajesh Lachmanna Kaslod R/o Biloli, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Dy. Director (R) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatage, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 27th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned {2} counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad dated 24.02.2009 in an appeal thereby upholding the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 04.10.2008 by which the Sub Divisional Officer had rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for issuance of a caste certificate. 3. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer seeking caste certificate claiming to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. Along with the said application the petitioner had produced various documents including caste certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 04.10.2008, rejected the application by observing that the documents produced by the petitioner are not sufficient to issue caste certificate in his favour. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Scrutiny Committee, however, the Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 24.02.2009 dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The said orders are impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that though the petitioner had submitted various documents including caste certificate of {3} the father of the petitioner yet the Sub Divisional Officer refused to issue caste certificate to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drawn our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court passed in writ petition No.2823/2009 dated 30.04.2009 to which one of us (A.V.Potdar, J.) was a party. By the said judgment this Court has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to issue caste certificate in favour of real brother of the petitioner. In the premise, we are inclined to allow this petition. Accordingly we allow this petition and quash and set aside the orders impugned in this petition passed by the Scrutiny Committee as well as by the Sub Divisional Officer. We hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner to the effect that he belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, forthwith. 6. Needless to say that the certificate to be issued will be subject to verification by the competent scrutiny committee. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5673-09