{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6719 OF 2009 Sweta d/o Shankarrao Shettiwar Age-20 years, Occ-Student R/o Biloli, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6726 OF 2009 Swati d/o Shankarrao Shettiwar Age-16 years, Occ-Student Minor, through her guardian Shankar s/o Gangadhar Shettiwar Age-55 years, Occ-Agril. R/o Biloli, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS {2} 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6727 OF 2009 Suresh s/o Shankarrao Shettiwar Age-21 years, Occ-Student R/o Biloli, Tq-Biloli, Dist-Nanded PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... {3} [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 8 th October 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. All these writ petitions are filed by two real sisters and their brother on the same set of facts and a common question of law is involved in these petition hence these petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 3. By the present petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the judgments and orders dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad thereby dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners challenging the orders dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, by which the Sub Divisional Officer had rejected the applications filed by the petitioners. 4. It appears that the petitioners had filed applications before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor seeking caste certificates claiming to be belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners had also submitted various documents along with their applications, including caste certificate issued to their real brother Laxman Shankarrao {4} Shettiwar along with his affidavit and genealogy showing the interse relationship. It further appears that the Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 05.05.2009, rejected the applications submitted by the petitioners by observing that the documents submitted by the petitioners are not sufficient to issue caste certificates as claimed for. It also appears that the said orders came to be challenged by the petitioners by preferring separate appeals before the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. However, the Scrutiny Committee, vide its order dated 30.06.2009, dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners and confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. The said orders are impugned in these petitions. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, invited our attention towards the caste certificate issued to the real brother of the petitioners on 03.05.2008 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist-Nanded, which was also submitted before the Sub Divisional Officer and Scrutiny Committee. It appears that this certificate, issued to the real brother of the petitioners, is not at all considered by the Sub Divisional Officer as well as by the Scrutiny Committee. The caste certificate issued to the real brother of the petitioners, prima faice, is sufficient to show that the petitioners also belong to the same caste of their brother. It appears that the Sub Divisional Officer and the Scrutiny Committee committed an error in rejecting the claim of the petitioners. In the premise, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and the Sub Divisional Officer are liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, these petitions succeed. We hereby quash and set aside the impugned {5} orders dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee and dated 05.05.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. We direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioners to the effect that they belong to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, forthwith. 7. Needless to state that the caste certificates to be issued will be subject to verification by the competent Scrutiny Committee. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6719-09