1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6427 OF 2007 Dharamraj s/o Manaji Nirde, Age: 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Kacharwadi, Post. Jod Hingni, Tq. Dharoor, Dist. Beed. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through, Secretary Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Scheduled Tribe, Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Through it's Member Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 2ND AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER K.K. TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2. By way of present Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 09-08-2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as "the said Committee"), by which the claim of the petitioner belonging to "Koli Mahadev", Scheduled Tribe, has been invalidated. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Executive Magistrate, Majalgaon after conducting the inquiry in respect of the caste of the petitioner, was pleased to issue a caste certificate dated 30-09-1989 stating therein that he belongs to "Koli Mahadev", Scheduled Tribe. 4. On the basis of the said caste certificate, on 29-07-1993 the petitioner was appointed as Lineman by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board against the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribe. Thereafter, the Maharashtra State Electricity 3 Board referred caste certificate of the petitioner to the said Committee for its verification. The said Committee by its order dated 09-08-2007 invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 5. Shri. V.V. Bhavthankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said Committee failed to give cogent and proper reasons while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the said Committee has failed to consider the fact that the petitioner's parents and his relatives are illiterate and there is old revenue as well as school record mentioning the caste as "Koli Mahadev". Non production of old record in respect of the caste is no ground for rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. 6. He further submits that during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner's cousin Prakash Dnyanoba Nirde's case is considered by the said Committee and issued certificate of validity dated 23-05-2008. He further submits that his 4 cousin filed affidavit in the present proceeding stating that the petitioner is his cousin and also gave genealogy in the said affidavit showing his blood relations with the petitioner as cousin. Both the documents were not available when the said Committee decided the petitioner's application for obtaining certificate of validity. Therefore, he preferred Civil Application No. 8401 of 2008 for bringing additional documents on record. Said Civil Application is allowed by this Court. 7. Shri. V.V. Bhavthankar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in a genealogy produced by his cousin for obtaining certificate of validity from the said Committee, his cousin's name appears in the said genealogy. On the basis of these new documents, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 09-08-2007 passed by the said Committee is liable to be set 5 aside and the said Committee be directed to issue certificate of validity in favour of the petitioner. 8. On the other hand, Shri. R.P. Phatke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee opposed the present Writ Petition stating that the said Committee has considered each and every document produced by the petitioner in support of his claim. He further submits that though the said Committee called upon the petitioner for personal hearing on 13-08-2002, 12-09-2002, 24-09-2002, 29-10-2002, and 19-07-2002, the petitioner remained absent and therefore, the said Committee has decided to take a decision on the available documents, because of non co-operation from the petitioner. He further submits that after considering the documents produced by the petitioner and Vigilance Cell Report, the said Committee held that the petitioner failed to produce cogent evidence in support of his case. He further submits that while rejecting petitioner's 6 claim, the said Committee relied on decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil vs. Addl. Commissioner and others. He further submits that the petitioner has failed to produce any validity certificate of his blood relatives with necessary affidavit with family tree before the said Committee. In view of these submissions, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner failed to make out the case and therefore, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 9. We heard both the Counsel at length. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Committee produced original file. We perused the original file. It is admitted fact that the petitioner's cousin received certificate of validity of his caste as "Koli Mahadev" from the said Committee on 23-05-2008 i.e. after filing the present Writ Petition. The petitioner's cousin specifically stated in his affidavit dated 18-06-2008 about his relation with the petitioner. 7 He also annexed genealogy of his family where the petitioner's name is shown as cousin. These documents were not available when the said Committee decided the petitioner's application for validity certificate. 10. Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances and since the validity certificate has been granted to the cousin of the petitioner, according to us, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remanded back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh by taking into consideration the validity certificate granted to the cousin of the petitioner. 11. In the light of these facts, therefore, we allow this Writ Petition and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 09-08-2007 passed by the said Committee and remit the matter back to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee for decision 8 afresh after taking into consideration the validity certificate granted to the cousin brother of the petitioner and other documents, if any, placed on record by the petitioner before the said Committee. In order to assist the respondent Scrutiny Committee for the expeditious disposal of the petitioner's application, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 23rd August, 2010 at about 11-00 a.m. and direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months from 23rd August, 2010. 12. The impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 09-08-2007 is quashed and set aside. Liberty granted to the petitioner to file additional documents, if any, including certificate of validity dated 23-05-2008 issued by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee in favour of Nirde Prakash Dnyanoba, cousin of the petitioner alongwith other documents if any. We 9 make it clear that the petitioner will co-operate with the respondent Scrutiny Committee for deciding his application within time bound programme i.e. within six months. We further make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the present case. The Scrutiny Committee to decide the petitioner's application on its merits, in accordance with law. 13. Rule is, thus, made absolute, on the terms indicated above, with no order as to costs. 14. Authenticated copy be provided to the parties. sd/- sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/AUG10/wp6427.07