Ladda 1 wp-3826-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3826 of 2011. Shri Varun Arun Shinde ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr N. V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr C.R.Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr M. K.More, Research Officer, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune present. CORAM: D.D. SINHA AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 28th June, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mr Bandiwadekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Sonavane, Assistant Government Pleader for the State and perused the petition. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order, dated 16th March, 2011, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, ( “ the Caste Scrutiny Committee” for Ladda 2 wp-3826-11.doc short ) whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakar (Scheduled Tribe) came to be invalidated. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the caste claim of the petitioner, along with the documents submitted by the petitioner to the Police Vigilance Cell for conducting home and school inquiry, however, it has not conducted fresh inquiry for verifying the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner nor conducted fresh home inquiry in this regard. It is submitted that the Police Vigilance Cell while submitting its report relied on the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of earlier home inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell while verifying the caste claim of the relative of the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that for want of proper home inquiry by the Vigilance Cell, the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot be sustained in law. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the basis of the instructions received from Mr M.K. More, Research Officer, Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, has made a statement that the facts placed before this Court by the Ladda 3 wp-3826-11.doc learned counsel for the petitioner, referred to herein above, are correct. The Vigilance Cell only relied on the statements of the witnesses already recorded during the course of the home inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell while verifying the caste claim of the relative of the petitioner. 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order. 6. In view of the undisputed position that the Vigilance Cell did not conduct fresh inquiry and failed to record statements of concerned witnesses, while verifying the genuineness of the documents submitted by the petitioner and only relied upon the statements recorded by the Police Vigilance Cell while verifying the caste claim of the relative of the petitioner, report of the Vigilance Cell submitted in the case of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, in our view, therefore, is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee also cannot be sustained in law. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, we set aside and quash the impugned order, dated 16th March, 2011, passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Ladda 4 wp-3826-11.doc Scrutiny Committee, with the direction to refer the caste claim of the petitioner along with the documents submitted by the petitioner to the Police Vigilance Cell for conducting fresh home and school inquiry. The Police Vigilance Cell should conduct fresh inquiry while verifying the genuineness of the caste claim and the documents submitted by the petitioner as per procedure stipulated in this regard and should submit fresh report to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. After receipt of the Vigilance Cell’s report, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to proceed in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard and decide the caste claim of the petitioner on its own merit and in accordance with law. 8. Writ petition is allowed in above terms. 9. No order as to costs. (D.D. SINHA,J) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)