{1} wp1125110.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11251 OF 2010 Sheshrao s/o Sambhaji Koltamwad, age: 27 years, Occ: Education, R/o Malborgaon, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 The Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. 3 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded. Respondents Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, advocate for petitioner Mr.N.B.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 3. Mr.R.P.Phatke, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 16 th December, 2010 {2} wp1125110.odt ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.): 1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 The petitioner is challenging the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer rejecting the application tendered by him for issuance of caste certificate and the order passed by the Respondent No.2 Committee confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. 3 The petitioner, in order to substantiate his claim, has placed reliance on the caste certificate issued in favour of his real brother on 13.06.1994 by the Taluka Executive Magistrate, Biloli, which certifies that his real brother belongs to `Koli Mahadeo’, a scheduled tribe. Apart from the caste certificate issued in favour of brother of the petitioner, the school record of the petitioner also indicates an entry in respect of his caste as `Koli Mahadeo’, a scheduled tribe. The Revenue Inspector, on conducting local inquiry, has also reported that prima facie, the petitioner appears to be belonging to `Koli Mahadeo’, a scheduled tribe. 4 It is recorded in several judgments delivered by this Court, that the consideration for issuance of caste certificate differ from the parameters which are required to be applied while issuing the validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. At the stage of {3} wp1125110.odt issuance of caste certificate, only prima facie material is required to be scrutinised, as the caste certificate is amenable to further scrutiny at the stage of issuance of validity certificate. 5 Considering these aspects of the matter, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, which has been confirmed by the appellate authority i.e. Respondent No.2 – Committee, needs to be quashed and set aside and Respondent No.3 needs to be directed to issue caste certificate in prescribed format in favour of the petitioner within stipulated period. 6 In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 15.06.2010, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, thereby refusing to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, as well as the order dated 10.08.2010, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, thereby rejecting the appeal, are quashed and set aside. (ii) The respondent no.3 is directed to issue caste certificate in the prescribed format, in favour of the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from today. (iii) However, it is made clear that the observations made herein {4} wp1125110.odt above are only for the purposes of considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of caste (tribe) certificate and that the Committee shall not be influenced by the same at the stage of considering the claim of the petitioner for grant of caste (tribe) validity certificate. It would be open for the Scrutiny Committee to consider the matter on its own merits. 7 Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1125110