1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5647 OF 1997. Rajani D/o Raoji Shirsath, Age 34 years, Occ.Advocate, R/o 26-A, Snehal Society, Near Gayatri Nagar,Jalgaon, Tq. & Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 3. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal Division, Bhusawal, Dist.Jalgaon. 4. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State,Nasik, Adiwasi Bhuvan, Old Agra Road, Nasik. ... Respondents. ... Mr.M.D.Joshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.4. ... 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 27.07.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner assails the judgment and order dated 21.10.1997, passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Nasik, thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli - Scheduled Tribe. 2. The Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on the ground that in the School record of the petitioner, her caste is shown as "Suryawanshi Koli". So also in the birth and death Register of her father the caste is shown as Koli. 3. In the School Leaving Certificate of the father which is of the year 1945, the caste is mentioned as "Mahadeo Koli". 4. Apart from the same report of the Vigilance Committee is placed on record. Perusal 3 of the said report of the Vigilance Committee it does not reflect that the Committee has made necessary interrogation by going to the village. The said report only shows that the Committee has examined School record but during inquiry the Vigilance Cell has not made any interrogation with the relatives nor has visited the village. The said report is not in consonance with the directives of the Apex Court in the case of "Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others" AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94. 5. In light of the above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Scrutiny Committee and relegate the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee at the stage where the Vigilance Cell would make the necessary inquiry afresh. 6. Copy of the Vigilance report shall be given to the petitioner and petitioner may file necessary reply and produce additional evidence if so advised. 4 7. Rule made absolute on above terms. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 16.8.2010. Issuance of formal notice as such is waived. The Committee shall decide the said claim of the petitioner within a period of one year from the date of appearance of the petitioner. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp564797