{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6355 OF 2009 Maroti Ganpati Bhadewad R/o Takalgaon, Tq-Basmat Dist-Hingoli PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Deputy Director (R) 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat, Dist-Hingoli RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 24th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of {2} India, the petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirming the order dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat, by which the Sub Divisional Officer had rejected the application of the petitioner for issuance of a caste certificate. 3. It appears that the petitioner had submitted an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat seeking caste certificate claiming to be belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. It further appears that the Sub Divisional Officer, vide order dated 27.04.2009 had rejected the application of the petitioner by observing that the documents produced by the petitioner are not sufficient for issuance of the caste certificate as prayed for. It also appears that being aggrieved by the said order of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner challenged the same before the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad by filing an appeal. However, the Scrutiny Committee dismissed the said appeal vide its order dated 30.06.2009 and uphold the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The said orders are impugned in the present petition. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner very fairly states that though the petitioner had produced affidavit of his relatives, yet he had not produced proper genealogy along with the same. Hence, the petitioner seeks leave to produce proper genealogy before the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat and prayed for remand of the matter for reconsideration. In the peculiar circumstances, we accept this request {3} and as the matter is being remanded for consideration afresh, we quash and set aside the orders impugned in this petition. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The orders dated 30.06.2009 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad and dated 27.04.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat are hereby quashed and set aside. We remit the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat for consideration afresh. We direct the petitioner to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat within a period of two weeks from today and produce proper genealogy and relevant documents before the Sub Divisional Officer. We also direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Basmat to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, in the light of fresh genealogy and other relevant documents, within a period of 6 months thereafter. We, however, make it clear that the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6355-09