1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5964 OF 2009 Ku.Bhagyashree D/o.Sadashiv Nainwad, Age-18 years, Occu-Education, R/o.At-Post-Lohgaon, Tq.Biloli, District-Nanded, Through Power of Attorney Holder, Sainath S/o.Dattatraya Nainwad, Age-25 years, Occu-Education, R/o.as above PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary to Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad, Through its Dy.Director (R), Aurangabad. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, District-Nanded. RESPONDENTS Mr.S.M.Vibhute, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Kurumkar, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3 Mr.P.S.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 08/09/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.POTDAR, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order passed in Appeal No.304/2009 dated 21/07/2009 by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad by which the Committee has rejected the appeal filed by the present petitioner challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 17/06/2009 by which the Sub Divisional Officer Degloor has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for issuance of the caste certificate as she claims that she belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. 3. Heard respective counsels for the parties. 4. In nutshell the facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as – on 07/05/2008, an application was moved by the present petitioner for issuance of caste certificate as she claims that she belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. Alongwith the said application, she had produced various documents alongwith the affidavit of her father. The affidavit and the caste validity certificate issued in favour of her paternal uncle alongwith his affidavit showing the genealogy as well as the same documents in 3 favour of her cousin. In his order dated 17/06/2009, it is observed by the Sub Divisional officer that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner is not sufficient for issuance of caste certificate as claimed by her. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad as stated earlier which was rejected by judgment and order dated 21/07/2009 impugned in the present writ petition. 5. During the course of submissions across the bar, our attention is drawn towards the caste validity certificate issued in favour of real uncle of the petitioner alongwith the affidavit filed by him. In this affidavit, genealogy is given which is sufficient to establish the relation interse between the caste validity certificate holder of the present petitioner. According to us, this documentary evidence tendered before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor as well as before the Scrutiny Committee is prima facie sufficient to show the caste of the present petitioner as Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe. It is oblivious that this documentary evidence produced by the petitioner was not properly considered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor as well as the members of the Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad and have drawn erroneous conclusion. 6. In the premise, the judgment and order impugned in the writ petition are liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly we quash and set aside the judgment and order passed by the Scrutiny 4 Committee as well as the Sub Divisional Officer Degloor under challenge in the present writ petition. We hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue caste certificate to the petitioner that she belongs to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe forthwith. 7. Needless to say that the caste certificate issued would be subject to verification by the competent Scrutiny Committee. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp5964-09