1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.7694 Of 2009. * Dnyanoba S/o Govindrao Killewad, ] Age 41 years, ] Occupation : Agriculture, ] R/o At Post Chera, Taluka Jalkot, ] District Latur. ] ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary, ] Tribal Development Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. ] ] 2) The Scheduled Tribe Caste ] Certificate Verification ] Committee, Aurangabad, ] Through its Deputy Director (R), ] Aurangabad. ] ] 3) The Collector, Latur, ] District Latur. ] ] 4) Prakash S/o Gunwantrao Mane, ] Age 35 years, ] Occupation : Agriculture, ] R/o Chera, Taluka Jalkot, ] District Latur. ] ... Respondents. -------- 2 Shri. Umakant K Patil, Advocate instructed by Shri. S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri. T.W. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No.4. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE: 3rd DECEMBER 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :(Per Naresh H Patil, J.) : 1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) The petitioner claims to be belonging to “Koli Mahadev”, Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner is holding the post of Sarpanch. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. By order dated 16th October 2009, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 3) The learned counsel Shri. Umakant Patil appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, complaint was filed 3 against the petitioner’s grandfather in Gulbarga Court. Certified extracts of the same were placed on record before the Scrutiny Committee wherein the caste of the petitioner’s grandfather was shown by the complainant as “Mahadev Koli”. It is further submitted that an offence of theft came to be registered against real uncle of the petitioner at Udgir Police Station wherein also the caste of his real uncle has been recorded as “Mahadev Koli”. The vigilance report is in favour of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee failed to hold affinity test properly, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4) We have perused the original record and proceedings. We find that Urdu documents at serial Nos.9 and 10 are having stamp and seal of the Court at Gulbarga. The vigilance officer did not opine regarding the said documents except saying that the documents being in Urdu could not be read and explained. We are not satisfied with the way the Committee has considered the issue of affinity test. All these issues are required to be gone into by the Scrutiny Committee afresh. Therefore, we are of the 4 view that the matter is required to be remanded back to the respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee. 5) The impugned order dated 16th October 2009 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 Scrutiny Committee shall decide the caste claim of the petitioner in view of our observations, afresh within six months from today. 6) Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. (K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.7694.09