WP No. 260/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 260 OF 2009 Bhima s/o. Honaji Kuchalwad, Age 65 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Kolgaon (B), Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The District Collector, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Through is Member Secretary. 3. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ....Respondents. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, AGP for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 25th August, 2011. JUDGMENT : [ PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1. Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. WP No. 260/09 2 2. The petitioner challenges order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Bhill", a scheduled tribe. The petitioner contested elections of Gram Panchayat and according to petitioner, he was elected as member of Gram Panchayat against the post reserved for scheduled tribe and he is continuously discharging his duties even today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A.N. Nagargoje submitted that the Scrutiny Committee has placed reliance on caste certificate of Vitthal Shivlungu Kuchalwad, who is one of the relative of the petitioner and who is shown to be belonging to Naikadi caste. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that reasonable evidence is brought on record to demonstrate that Vitthal Shivlungu Kuchalwad is not related to petitioner and in spite of the same, the Scrutiny Committee considered Vithal to be relative of the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that it was wrong on the part of Scrutiny Committee to observe that as the petitioner failed to bring the record in respect of his caste claim prior to 1950, his claim cannot be considered. This observation, according to the learned counsel, was contrary to the established view in this regard. It was further submitted that ancestors of the petitioner were uneducated and the same should not be adversely considered while verifying the caste claim of the petitioner. WP No. 260/09 3 4. Learned A.G.P. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar supported the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and produced original record before us for perusal. 5. We have perused the material placed on record. We find that the deeper scrutiny ought to have been made by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee in respect of relation of the petitioner with Vitthal Shivlungu Kuchalwad as it was necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to inquire as to whether Vitthal Shivlungu Kuchalwad was related to the petitioner. We find that the Scrutiny Committee shall also look in to the affinity test more closely than what has been done in this case. Considering the material placed on record in its entirety, the matter needs to be remanded back for fresh appreciation by the Scrutiny Committee. If necessary, the Committee could also verify certain issues raised in the petition by asking the Vigilance Cell to inquire into the matter. 6. With these observations, the impugned order dated 21.5.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall co-operate with the inquiry. The respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee shall dispose of the caste claim of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of this WP No. 260/09 4 order after hearing the petitioner afresh. All the issues are kept open. 7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/wp260.09