(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1569 OF 1994 Bhagwan s/o. Ramsing Mahale, Aged : 39 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Quarter No. Old E/2, Deep Nagar, Bhusawal, Taluka : Bhusawal, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department, Mantralaya, Bombay - 32. 2. The District Magistrate, Jalgaon, District : Jalgaon. 2A. The Tahsildar, Jamner, Taluka : Jamner, District : Jalgaon. 3. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Social Welfare Department, Pune-1. 4. The Joint Secretary, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, General Administration Department, Estrala Batteries, Extension Building, Plot No.1, Ground Floor, Dharavi Road, Matunga, Bombay - 400 019. (2) 5. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Prakash Gad, Bandra (E), Bombay, Through its Chairman. 6. Director, Vigilance and Security, M.S.E.B., Hongkong Bank Building, 3rd Floor, M.G. Road, Fort, Bombay - 400 001. ....................... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Smt. S.D. Shelke, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. P.B. Paithankar, Advocate, for respondent nos.4 to 6. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 22ND JUNE 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned District Magistrate, Jalgaon, respondent no.2 herein, dated 5th April 1994, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner, as belonging to "Rajput Bhamta", which is notified as Nomadic Tribe, and further directing the Tahsildar to cancel the (3) caste certificate and confiscate the same. 2. The Apex Court, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (AIR 1995 SC 94), has laid down various guidelines in the matter of scrutiny of the claims of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. One of the important guidelines, laid down by the Apex Court, is pertaining to inquiry by the Vigilance Cell. Subsequently, the legislature has enacted the Act i.e. Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. 3. The Apex Court, in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), so also, the legislature has also provided for appointing committees which consist of various experts for deciding the caste claims. Admittedly, in the present case, the validity is determined by the Collector and not by the Committee which is constituted as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) or as per the provisions of the said Act. Further, admittedly, the inquiry by the Vigilance Cell is not done in the present matter. We, therefore, find that it would be in the interest of justice that the caste claim of the (4) petitioner is re-verified by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and also the Vigilance Cell. There is an interim order operating in favour of the petitioner for a considerable time. 4. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 5th April 1994, passed by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, thereby invalidating caste claim of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule. The Committee shall re-consider the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. The Committee shall decide the caste claim of the petitioner as far as possible within a period of six months from today. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the said Committee on 12th July 2010 and, as such, requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. (iii) The interim relief operating in the petition shall stand continued till the decision of the Committee and in the event, any order adverse to petitioner is passed, for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of communication by the petitioner. (5) 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1569