(1) WP 5204.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5204 OF 2011 Chandrakant S/o Sopan Mudewar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of the present Petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 30.10.2009 passed by respondent no.3-the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, thereby rejecting the application filed by the present petitioner for grant of caste certificate that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled tribe and the judgment and order passed by the learned respondent no.2-Committee, thereby rejecting the appeal filed by the present petitioner. (2) WP 5204.2011 3. Perusal of the order passed by the respondent no.3 would reveal that the only ground on which the application is rejected is that though there are various members in the petitioner's family, none has obtained the caste certificate. The appeal has been rejected on the ground that though the Committee has deeply considered the matter, the reasoning given by the Sub Divisional Officer is satisfactory and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 4. This Court in number of cases has held that the consideration at the stage of grant of caste certificate is different than the consideration for the grant of validity of the candidate. What is required to be considered at the stage of grant of caste certificate is only as to whether there is prima facie material to support the claim of the candidate belonging to a particular tribe or caste. 5. Perusal of the record would reveal that the petitioner had submitted the necessary documents in support of his claim. Not only that but the relevant (3) WP 5204.2011 Revenue Officer i.e. the Circle Officer has also recommended the claim of the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, we find the impugned orders are not sustainable in law. Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/