ASN 1 WP-1160.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1160 OF 2011 Ms. Shradha Chandrashekhar Koli. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by J.G.Reddy for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP. For Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Monday, 14 st March, 2011 PC : Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2 Leave to delete respondent No.3. 3 What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 19th June, 2010 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune in Case No.TCSC/END/Solapur/Remand-16/2010. 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the committee passed the impugned order, the petitioner was not in a position to produce the birth register record of her real grand father Sidram of the year 1925 as well as the cousin grand father Shantappa son of Mortappa Sidram of the year 1927 which clearly shows that they ASN 2 WP-1160.sxw belong to Mahadeo Koli Caste. Copies of the said relevant extracts of the said birth register translated from the Modi lipi issued by the Tahsildar, Akkalkot are produced on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited our attention to the family tree at Exh.P with the petition. It is therefore, submitted that since the committee did not consider the validity of these documents, matter may be remanded for fresh examination of the material on record in the line of the birth record of petitioner’s cousin grand father and grand father. It is further submitted that Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner’s real sister Snehal which was already placed before the committee and in spite of the said certificate, the committee has refused to issue the certificate. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the birth record of the petitioner’s grand father and cousin grand father will be placed before the committee and the committee may examine the matter afresh including the material produced before the committee and the material now being placed before the committee. The learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1and 2 submits that the matter having been examined by the committee on the basis of the material produced by the petitioner earlier and by the Vigilance Officer and the petitioner having been given an opportunity to keep the material before the Vigilance Officer, there is no justification for setting aside the impugned order. 5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the report of the Vigilance Officer made on the basis of the documents after considering the documents which pertain to persons who are not ASN 3 WP-1160.sxw petitioner’s relative but other persons residing in the village and having the same name pertains to persons who are nor petitioner’s relative referring to birth record of Mortappa Sidram. It is submitted that the said person was born at Village Majrewadi in the year 1922 whereas the petitioner’s cousin grand father Mortappa Sidhram was born at Village Urnur, Taluka Akkalkot and the said certificate shows that child was born to Mortappa Sidram at Village Majrewadi. . It is further submitted that by referring to the birth record of the persons who are not the petitioner’s relatives and grand father, the respondent committee has proceeded on a wrong assumption and passed the impugned order. 6 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that matter needs to be examined afresh in light of the material now sought to be produced by the petitioner along with the material earlier produced by the petitioner before the committee. The material produced by the Vigilance Officer before the committee also needs to be considered in light of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. We find some substance in the petitioner’s contention that when the petitioner’s real sister was given caste scrutiny certificate by the concerned committee on 10th June, 2005, that certificate also requires to be considered along with the material now sought to be produced by the petitioner. 7 In the result, the impugned order dated 19th June, 2010 passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded to the committee for fresh consideration after giving petitioner ASN 4 WP-1160.sxw an opportunity of placing on record such other material as the petitioner may produce within four weeks from today and after giving petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 8 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. 9 In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition is disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.