1 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6603 OF 2010. Kamani D/o Anil Kamalallu under guardian father Anil S/o Balanna Kamalallu, Age 51 years, Occ.Service, R/o Gaddigudam, Chevani, Taluka and District Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad through its Dy. Director(R) & Member Secretary, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.R.Survase, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Godbharle, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.R.P.Phatake, advocate for the Respondent No.3. 2 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6678 OF 2010. Kavelkrushna S/o Anil Kamalallu father - Anil S/o Balanna Kamalallu, Age 51 years, Occ.Service, R/o Gaddigudam, Chevani, Taluka and Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad through its Dy. Director(R) & Member Secretary, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.B.R.Survase, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.V.Godbharle, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.R.P.Phatake, advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 31.01.2011. 3 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H.Patil,J.) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forth. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 3. The petitioners being minor, have filed the petitions through their father Anil S/o Balanna Kamalallu. By an order dated 5.8.2009, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, rejected the application of the petitioners for getting the caste certificate. The petitioners thereafter, filed an appeal to the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. By an order dated 27.10.2009, the Committee dismissed the appeal. The petitioners filed two separate petitions bearing W.P.No.199/2010 and W.P.No.208/2010, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Aurangabad and the Scrutiny Committee. By judgment and order dt.18.1.2010, 4 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A.M.Khanwilkar and S.S.Shinde, JJ.) set aside both the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as Scrutiny Committee. The Division Bench directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioners afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law. The Sub-Divisional Officer, thereafter by an order dated 26.3.2010, rejected the application again. The petitioners had no other alternative than to prefer an appeal before the Committee. By an order dated 15.4.2010, the Committee dismissed the appeals. In this scenario, the petitioners had to approach this Court by filing petitions. 4. The Respondent Sub-Divisional Officer - Mr.Waman Ganpatrao Kadam, filed affidavit-in- reply. Though the deponent contended in the reply that he had no intention to flout the order of the Hon'ble High Court or to disobey the orders of the Court but because of inadvertence, the orders were passed by him by considering the School Leaving Certificate. 5 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. 5. Inspite of giving a clear finding in respect of the manner in which the present case of the petitioners was to be considered and appreciated, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Committee both committee patent error and reached the same conclusion which was reached by them earlier. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing of earlier petition had observed in para 6 that the view taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer, on both the counts can not be sustained. Even in accordance with the facts of the case, the documents placed on record by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the caste certificates ought to have been issued to the petitioners. 6. We are further disturbed to note the manner in which the statutory Committee has dealt with the appeal filed for the second time by the petitioners. The Committee dismissed the appeal observing that it deeply observed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant along with the proposal. The orders of identical 6 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. nature passed by the Committee have been earlier dealt with by us. They have been set aside. The Committee is a quasi judicial forum. It is expected that the orders are passed by the Committee are reasoned one which would disclose application of mind to the given facts and circumstances of the case. It is expected that henceforth the Committee shall take note of the same. 7. In the light of the facts of the case the documents placed on record, we are of the view that the petitioners deserve to be issued caste certificates as belonging to "Mannerwarlu" caste. The impugned orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer and the Scrutiny Committee are set aside. We direct the Sub-Divisional Officer, Aurangabad to issue caste certificates to the petitioners forthwith as "Mannerwarlu". The Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 7 W.P.No.6603/10 with W.P.No.6678/10. 8. In the peculiar facts of the case, we direct the State to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) in each of the petition to the petitioners within four (4) weeks. 9. Rule made absolute accordingly. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp6603.10