wp2771.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2771 OF 2010 Mohammad Tareq Ansari S/o Mahammad Mushtak Ahmed .. PETITIONER -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner Mr K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the respondent/State ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 9th August, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. The Petition has been preferred by a Muslim, who claims that he belongs to the "Other Backward Class", Jullah caste. The Scrutiny Committee has dismissed the claim of the petitioner and has invalidated his caste certificate. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner draws our attention to the fact that the validity certificates have been issued in favour of the petitioner's brother and sister, as also his paternal uncle. He points out that Vigilance Cell report also bears out the claim of the petitioner that he is from the "Jullah caste". wp2771.10 3. We have perused the order of the Scrutiny Committee and the only reason that the Committee has advanced for not accepting the claim of the petitioner is that each individual must establish his/her tribe claim independently. The Committee has relied on the decision in the case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil and another V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others" reported in " AIR 1995 SC 94" and a decision of the Nagpur bench of this Court in the case of "Ravindra S/o Dnyandev Solanke V/s State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 3427 of 2006 reported in "2006(6) All M.R. 605", as also the decision in the case of "Raju Ramsing Vasave V/s Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others" reported in "2008 AIR SCW 6184". 4. It is no doubt true, that merely because a member of the family is granted a caste validity certificate, another member of the family need not necessarily be issued a certificate as a matter of course. However, while refusing such a certificate, the Committee must indicate its reason for refusing such a certificate. When the validity certificate is obtained by fraud and if such an allegation is made, then possibly the candidate who relies on such certificate, which has been issued to his relatives, may not be granted a validity certificate. However, when there is no controversy regarding the issuance of the validity certificate to a member of a family, the Committee should consider the proximity of the relationship to the applicant before it with the person in whose favour the validity certificate has been issued. In the case of siblings the Committee should consider the fact that a validity certificate has been issued to one of the siblings and ought to be persuaded to issue a wp2771.10 validity certificate in favour of the other siblings, unless it is actuated by fraud. A certificate issued to siblings certainly has a persuasive value, which the Committee must consider before rejecting the claim of the applicant. 5. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The committee shall afford a personal hearing to the petitioner, who may produce the validity certificate issued to his relatives. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 5th September, 2011. The Committee will decide the claim of the petitioner within four months from that date. 6. The Petition is disposed of, accordingly. ( M.T. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) gas/wp2771.10