(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 11335 OF 2010 Prakash s/o. Wamanrao More, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Sarsam, Taluka : Himayat Nagar, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, Taluka : Kinwat, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. 2. An application tendered by the petitioner, for issuance of caste certificate, has been turned down by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat (District : Nanded), vide order dated 29th November 2007, and the appeal tendered against the rejection of the request, has also been turned down by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, vide order dated 19th May 2009. 3. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. Along with the application, the petitioner had (3) tendered documents pertaining to his school record wherein entry has been recorded as "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. Apart from this, the Circle Inspector, on the basis of local inquiry, has informed that the petitioner appears to be belonging to "Thakur", Scheduled Tribe. It is also brought to our notice, that a certificate of validity has been issued in favour of one Kamlakar s/o. Rajaram More, who is stated to be cousin brother of the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the Sub-Divisional Officer ought to have considered the application tendered by the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate favourably. 4. It is recorded in several judgments delivered by this Court, that the considerations 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 issuance of caste certificate, only prima facie material is required to be scrutinized, as the caste certificate is amenable to further scrutiny at the stage of issuance of validity certificate. 5. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 29th November 2007, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat, thereby refusing to issue (4) caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, as well as, the order dated 19th May 2009, 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 form, in favour of the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from today. (iii) However, it is made clear that the observations made herein 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. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp11335