1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2010 NAGESH MARUTI NAGURE MINOR THROUGH NATURAL GUARDIAN MARUTI NARSAPPA NAGURE Age : 47 , OCC SERVICE R/O : AT POST HANEGAON TQ. DEGLOOR, DIST. NANDED .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI – 32. 2. SCHEDULE TRIBE CASTE VERIFICATION SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AURANGABAD DIVISION, AURANGABAD. 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEGLOOR, DIST. NANDED 4. THE TAHSILDAR DEGLOOR, DIST. NANDED .... RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4130 OF 2010 HANMANT MARUTI NAGURE Age : 18 , OCC. EDUCATION R/O :AT POST HANEGAON, TQ. DEGLOOR, DIST. NANDED .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 2 1. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI – 32. 2. SCHEDULE TRIBE CASTE VERIFICATION SCRUTINY COMMITTEE AURANGABAD DIVISION, AURANGABAD. 3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DEGLOOR, DIST. NANDED 4. THE TAHSILDAR DEGLOOR, DIST. NANDED .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.B.Gastgir, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. S.V.Kurundkar, Mr. S.K. Kadam , Assistant Govt. Pleaders for State. Mr. P.S.Patil, Standing Counsel for respondent no. 2. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/05/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, these petitions are heard finally at this stage. 2. In the light of the fact that the nature of the challenge in both these petitions is similar, these petitions are being decided by this common Judgment. 3 3. By the present petitions, the petitioners takes exception to the order dated 5/12/2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and the order dated 25/2/2010 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad in Appeal, thereby rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuance of caste certificate as belonging to Koli Mahadeo – Scheduled Tribe. 4. The petitioner along with his application had submitted various documents in support of his contention including the caste certificate issued in favour of his father. The Sub Divisional Officer rejected the application of the petitioner on the sole ground that in the census record of his grandfather, the caste is shown as Koli. 5. The Sub Divisional Officer ought not to have ignored the relevant evidence in the shape of the caste certificate issued in favour of the father of the petitioner. That the caste certificate in favour of the father of petitioner at this stage is sufficient evidence to issue caste certificate in favour of the petitioner. 6. In the light of the above, we set aside the impugned orders passed by the authorities and direct the authorities to issue the caste certificate to the petitioners forthwith as belonging to Koli Mahadeo – Scheduled Tribe. 4 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 4129,4130.10 ( J )