Kambli 1 WP4589.07 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4589 OF 2007 ... 1.Prafulla Vitthal Thakar ...Petitioner v/s. 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 3.Competent Authority and Director of Technical Education 4.Principal, V.J.T.I.Matunga 5.Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Sawantwadi 6.Commissioner, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune ...Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.A.Gangal Special Counsel with Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 22nd November,2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioners challenge the order passed by the Scrutiny Kambli 2 WP4589.07 Committee dated 8-2-2007 holding that the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Thakar, Schedule Tribe is not valid. 2. Admittedly the Petitioner belongs to Sindhudurg District. There is a finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee itself, on the basis of the material produced before it, that the Petitioner belongs to Thakar Caste. Persons belonging to Thakar Caste from Sindhudurg District were treated as members of Nomadic Tribe by the Government of Maharashtra from 1961 till 2004. It is clear from the order that the Petitioner had claimed before the Scrutiny Committee that in the Gazette of Sindhudurg (Ratnagiri) of the Sindhudurg Sansathan of the period 1880 there is a mention that Thakar have migrated from Sahyadri Hills before 400 years and they have now settled in Sawantwadi Sansthan. The Kambli 3 WP4589.07 Petitioner on the basis of this entry in the Gazette was claiming that he is Thakar from Sahyadri Hills and therefore he is scheduled tribe. It has also come on record that while persons belong to Thakar caste from other part of the State of Maharashtra were being treated as Other Backward Class by the State Government,but the Thakar belonging to Sindhudurg District were treated as persons belonging to Nomadic Tribe. In our order dated 27th August, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.6293 of 2005 (Devika Sitaram Gangavane v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors), we have referred to this circumstances in detail and have directed the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the issue. 4. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. Kambli 4 WP4589.07 O R D E R (i)The order impugned in the petition is set aside; (ii)The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration in the light of the observations made above as also the observations made in our order dated 27th August, 2010 in Writ Petition No.6293 of 2005, referred to above; (iii)Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs; (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)