1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7248 OF 2010 Kum. Pranita d/o Nagnath Thakkarwad, Age minor, Occupation Education, R/o Kasrali, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. Through father/ natural guardian Shri Nagnath s/o Potanna Thakkarwad, Age 36 years, Occ. Agri., R/o as above. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served through Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 3 Mrs. Sarika Deshpande, Advocate holding for Shri R.P. Phatke, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. ..... W I T H WRIT PETITION NO.7251 OF 2010 Madhav s/o Nagnath Thakkarwad, Age minor, Occupation Education, R/o Kasrali, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded. Through father/ natural guardian 2 Shri Nagnath s/o Potanna Thakkarwad, Age 36 years, Occ. Agri., R/o as above. ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai (Copy to be served through Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, District Nanded. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 3 Mrs. Sarika Deshpande, Advocate holding for Shri R.P. Phatke, Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 12th August, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of 3 Iondia take exception to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor, rejecting the applications of the petitioners and the order of the Scrutiny Committee in appeals, rejecting the appeals. 3. At the outset, Mr. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioners states that, the petitioners are now in possession of additional evidence, which would substantiate the claim of the petitioners as belonging to Mannerwarlu – Scheduled Tribe. Mr. Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioners further states that, inadvertently, the aforesaid material could not be produced before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor. In that light of the matter, therefore, the learned counsel prays for grant of an opportunity afresh of tendering the aforesaid material/ evidence. According to us, an opportunity needs to be extended to the petitioners for submitting the additional material/ evidence. 4. In that light of the matter, these petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor for deciding the applications of the petitioners afresh. The petitioners shall submit the additional material/ evidence before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor within four weeks from today and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Degloor shall thereafter decide the applications of the petitioners 4 afresh within two months thereof. 5. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (P.V. HARDAS, J.)