1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5112 OF 2007 Mrs.Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf. ...Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.D.B.Sawant, for Petitioner. Mr.R.V.Govilkar, for Respondent no.4. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED:15th September,2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Mumbai, holding that the respondent no.4 belongs to “Namdev Shimpi” caste. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We have gone through the record. We find that the tribunal in arriving at the conclusion that the 2 respondent no.4 belongs to “Namdev Shimpi” caste, has relied on the circular issued by the State of Maharashtra wherein it is stated that if main caste is mentioned, the sub-castes are deemed to be included in the main caste and has held that though in the list of State of Maharashtra there is no specific mention of caste “Namdev Shimpi”, because the “shimpi” is main caste which is mentioned at Sr.no.153 in the list of Other backward class of Government of Maharashtra, it can be said that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class. 2. It is also a common ground that though the family of the respondent no.4 migrated to the State of Maharashtra long back, the family hails from Karnataka State. The petitioner has placed on record a list of Other Backward classes prepared by the Karnataka State. Perusal of that list shows that the caste “Namdev Simpy” is specifically included in that list. In our opinion, in view of the fact that the family of respondent no.4 hails from the State of Karnataka, the list of other backward class prepared by Karnataka State would be relevant while 3 considering the caste claim of the respondent no.4. After considering that list, of course, the Tribunal was free to consider the circular or Government Resolution that has been issued by the Government for the purpose of interpreting the list. In our opinion, however, non-consideration of all the related entries in the State of Maharashtra list and the entries in the State of Karnataka list makes the order of the tribunal infirm. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Mumbai which is impugned in the petition, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Mumbai for denovo consideration and decision in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) 4 (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)