1 WP No.5021/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5021 OF 2010 Shahaji Ramchandra Londhe ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr. C.R.Sonawane AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 7th September 2010 P.C. 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 6th May 2010 passed by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Thakur Schedule Tribe is not valid. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides. 3. We find that along with other documents, petitioner was relying on validity certificate in respect of Bhausaheb Londhe, real brother of the petitioner issued by the Scrutiny Committee on 24th January 2005 and validity certificate issued in favour of Megha Bhausaheb Londhe by the Scrutiny Committee Pune on 24th June 2003. Thus, validity 2 WP No.5021/10 certificate have been discarded by the Scrutiny Committee merely by observing that each and every case is dealt separately on its own merits. Without going into the question as to for what reasons, Pune Scrutiny Committee had granted those validity certificate. What was the material considered by the Pune Scrutiny Committee whether any affinity test was applied or not applied. In our opinion, when validity certificate was shown to have been issued in favour of blood brother of the petitioner, Scrutiny Committee should have gone through the records of the proceedings in which validity certificate was issued in favour of the brother of the petitioner and considered that material while discarding that validity certificate. In our opinion, the validity certificate could not have been discarded by making general observations. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the Scrutiny Committee impugned the petition will have to be set aside. In our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 4. The order impugning the petition is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo hearing and decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. 5. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)