wp5256.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5256 OF 2009 Shrikrishna S/o Chandrabhan Bawaskar Age : 35 years, Occ : Doctor/Medical Practitioner, R/o Chincholi (Limbaji), Tq. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad At present Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. PETITIONER Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2. The Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through it's Member Secretary ..RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.S. Deshmukh holding for Shri S.S. Phatal, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent/State CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 9th August, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. The petitioner claims to be belong to the `Koli Malhar', scheduled tribe. His tribe claim has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and hence, wp5256.09 the present Petition. 3. We have perused the report of the Vigilance Cell as well as the Scrutiny Committee and we are convinced that the petitioner's tribe claim has been considered erroneously by the Committee. The petitioner's claim was not that he belongs to the "Mahadeo Koli", scheduled tribe but that he was a member of the "Koli Malhar", scheduled tribe. It appears that the Scrutiny Committee, while considering the petitioner's claim, has stated that the petitioner has claimed that he was a "Mahadeo Koli" and not a "Koli Malhar". Even assuming that this is a typographical error in the order of the Scrutiny Committee, a perusal of the Vigilance Cell report indicates that the person named by the Scrutiny Committee as the father of the petitioner was not the same person, who was interviewed as the father of the petitioner by the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell has mentioned one Chandrabhan Totaram Bawaskar as the father of the petitioner, whereas, the Scrutiny Committee has referred to the documents submitted in respect of Chandrabhan Hari Bawaskar. The Scrutiny Committee has referred to the School records of this Chandrabhan Hari Bawaskar and commented upon those records. However, the Vigilance Cell report indicates that Chandrabhan Totaram Bawaskar was not a educated, therefore, the question of supplying any school record would not arise. 4. Shri Kadam, the learned A.G.P. appearing for the Scrutiny Committee has examined the record available with him and has informed us that the School record of the petitioner's father has not been produced by the wp5256.09 petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee 5. The order impugned in this Petition obviously indicates that the Scrutiny Committee has not applied its mind to the petitioner's claim. In fact, it has considered the documents pertaining to somebody else, while rejecting the petitioner's tribe claim. 6. In these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The Scrutiny Committee will afford a personal hearing to enable the petitioner to establish his claim that he belongs to the Koli Malhar, scheduled tribe. 7. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 5th September, 2011. The Committee will decide the petitioner's claim within four months from today. The Petition is disposed of. The Rule made absolute accordingly. No orders as to costs. ( M.T. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) gas/wp5256.09