{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.758 OF 1994 Kumari Anita Annasaheb Sapkal R/o Sillod, Tq-Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The Additional Tribal Commissioner, Amravati, 3. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Verification Committee, Pune 4. Police Patil, Village Railgaon, Tq-Sillod Dist-Aurangabad 5. The Collector, Jalna RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.S.Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent State. Mr.R.P.Phatake, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 31 st July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution {2} of India, by which the petitioner takes exception to an order passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee dated 08.06.1992 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. 2. It appears that the petitioner applied for verification of a tribe claim, as she intended to prosecute further studies, by setting up a claim as belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the Scrutiny Committee and tendered about 13 documents, which are enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee, upon evaluation of the material produced by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed in establishing that she belongs to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe in the light of the fact that the admission extract of the primary school pertaining to the father of the petitioner and other relatives the caste which was recorded was “Koli” and not “Koli Malhar”. Ultimately, the committee, also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been able to establish her affinity and ethnic linkage to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner thus being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Scrutiny Committee has filed the present petition. 3. This petition has been pending in this Court since 1994 and during the pendency of the petition, as is urged by the petitioner, about 14 relatives of the petitioner have been granted validity {3} certificates by the Scrutiny Committee. Mr.Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, urges before us to remit the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh. We find that the petitioner has amended the petition and has also placed on record the validity certificates granted to her relatives. Mr.Phatake, learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee has urged for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the school record pertaining to the father of the petitioner clearly discloses his caste as “Koli” and not “Koli Malhar”. 4. It is true that mere granting of validity certificate to a relative would not axiomatically entitle a candidate to be issued with a validity certificate. Each person has to discharge the burden placed by the Statute in establishing that he or she belongs to the caste or tribe to which she or he claims to be belonging to. It is equally true that the tribe claim of the petitioner had been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of school record of her father. We, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that about 14 relatives of the petitioner have since then been granted validity certificates. Obviously, these validity certificates have been granted to the relatives of the petitioner during the pendency of this petition. Therefore, according to us, it would be appropriate for the respondent Scrutiny Committee to examine the validity certificates, qua petitioner and to determine if the petitioner has been able to discharge the burden placed on her of belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. {4} 5. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh. In order to assist the Scrutiny Committee in the expeditious disposal of the tribe claim of the petitioner, we direct the petitioner to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 17th August 2009. The petitioner shall produce whatever documents on which the petitioner relies, on 17.08.2009. Mr.Golegaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner would not seek any adjournment and would cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the tribe claim. We direct the Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within 4 months of 17 th August 2009 and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Since we have remitted the matter back to the Committee for a decision afresh, we direct that no adverse action be taken against the petitioner. 6. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp758-94