Kambli 1 WP4287.07 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4287 OF 2007 ... Lata Namdeo Thakar ...Petitioner v/s. 1.The State of Maharashtra 2.The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 3.Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg 4.Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Sawantwadi 5.Commissioner, Tribal Research and Training Institute, Pune ...Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioners. Mr.V.A.Gangal Special Counsel with Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 22nd November,2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioners challenge the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 22-2-2007 holding that the Kambli 2 WP4287.07 claim of the Petitioner that she belongs to Thakar, Schedule Tribe is not valid. 2. Admittedly the Petitioner belongs to Sindhudurg District. There is a finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee itself, on the basis of the material produced before it, that the Petitioner belongs to Thakar Caste. Persons belonging to Thakar Caste from Sindhudurg District were treated as members of Nomadic Tribe by the Government of Maharashtra from 1961 till 2004. It is clear from the order that the Petitioner had claimed before the Scrutiny Committee that in the Gazette of Sindhudurg (Ratnagiri) of the Sindhudurg Sansathan of the period 1880 there is a mention that Thakar have migrated from Sahyadri Hills before 400 years and they have now settled in Sawantwadi Sansthan. The Petitioner on the basis of this entry in the Kambli 3 WP4287.07 Gazette was claiming that she is Thakar from Sahyadri Hills and therefore she is scheduled tribe. This aspect of the matter has been disposed of by the Committee by making following observations: “The submission of the applicant about her migration from Sahyadri hills to Sawantwadi does not support her claim as Scheduled Tribe Thakar neither she has submitted evidence to support her say.” 3. There are two parts to this above quoted portion. First part is the submission of the Applicant not supporting her claim. That is the conclusion of the Committee and that is not a reason. The other part is that she has not submitted evidence to support her say. It is nobody’s case that the relevant Gazette was not produced before the Committee. It has also come on record that Kambli 4 WP4287.07 while persons belong to Thakar caste from other part of the State of Maharashtra were being treated as Other Backward Class by the State Government, the Thakars belonging to Sindhudurg District were treated as persons belonging to Nomadic Tribe. In our order dated 27th August, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.6293 of 2005 (Devika Sitaram Gangavane v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors), we have referred to this circumstance in detail and have directed the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the issue. In our opinion, the issue whether persons belonging to Thakar caste/tribe in Sindhudurg District, who were being treated as Nomadic Tribe by the State Government actually belong to Scheduled Tribe Thakar is a question which will have to be considered by the Scrutiny Committee in detail and not in perfunctory manner, as has been done in this case. Kambli 5 WP4287.07 4. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i)The order impugned in the petition is set aside; (ii)The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for denovo consideration in the light of the observations made above as also the observations made in our order dated 27th August, 2010 in Writ Petition No.6293 of 2005, referred to above; (iii)Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs; (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (N.D.Deshpande, J.)