1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3022 OF 2007 Babadas s/o. Ganeshrao Patodekar Aged 30 years, Occ. Education, r/o. Patoda, Taluka Biloli, Dist. Nanded. At present r/o. Hingoli. .. petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra (through its Secretary , Tribal Development Department, Mantralayla, Mumbai.) 2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (through its Member Secretary) Aurangabad. 3] The Collector, Nanded. 4] The Tahsildar, Biloli, Dist. Nanded. 5] Dnyanrajan Agriculture Vidyalaya (through its Superintendent) Goregaon, Tq. Sengaon, District Hingoli. .. Respondents. 2 --- Mr. Anand Singh Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Malte,Advocate for the respondent NO.2 Committee Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent Nos. 1,3 and 4 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER,2009. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2] This is one more classic example of total non application of mind by the respondent No.2 Committee. 3] The petitioner claims to be belonging to “Mahadeo Koli” Scheduled tribe. He was issued a caste certificate on 12/1/1999 certifying that he belongs to “Koli Mahadeo” Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner's caste certificate was referred to the respondent NO.2 Committee for validation. The same is rejected by the impugned order dated 30th December, 2005. Hence, the present petition. 3] Shri Bayas, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that though various documents were submitted by the petitioner in support of his claim, they have not at all been considered by the 3 respondent No.2 Committee. He further submits that though the explanation to the Vigilance Cell report has been given by the petitioner, the same is also not considered by the committee. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4] Shri Malte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the committee on the contrary submits that the respondent No.2 committee has considered all the documents in its correct perspective and as such, no interference is warranted. 5] From the perusal of the material on record, it can clearly be seen that the petitioner has produced a document 15th July, 1944, i.e. Extract from the birth and death register pertaining to his own father namely, Ganesh Dattatraya Patodekar. Apart from this, the petitioner has also produced various documents in support of his claim of belonging Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. 6] The said document i.e. Extract of birth and death register in respect of his father is found at Sr.No.23. However, the respondent No.2 Committee has considered all the documents from Sr. No. 2 to 24, 26 to 29, 36 and 27 in one line, “ that the documents are issued in a casual manner”. Though according to Shri Malte, appearing for the respondent No.2 committee, this is a sufficient consideration, we are unable to accept the said submission. On the contrary, we find that the entire consideration by the committee is in a casual and cavalier manner. 4 7] We have come across various cases wherein the committee, though voluminous documents were available in support of the claim of a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe, has invalidated the claim merely on the ground that a pre-constitutional document is not available in support of such claims. In the present case, we do not understand as to why, when a pre-constitutional document is available with the petitioner, the same is not given due consideration by the committee. 8] Apart from that, we have also perused the report of the vigilance cell. Prima facie, we find that, to some extent, it supports the case of the petitioner. It is specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has given explanation to the said vigilance committee report. The said contention is not denied either by filing any affidavit in reply. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that he had given explanation to the report of the vigilance cell, stands unrebutted and as such, admitted. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in observing that the approach of the respondent No.2 committee has been casual and cavalier and the impugned order has been passed without proper application of mind. We could have taken a very serious view of the matter as we have noticed that in various matters the approach of the Scrutiny Committee is totally casual, cavalier and callous. The committee should bear in mind that it exercises quasi judicial powers and it is empowered to decide valuable question relating to rights of citizen and as such, it is not expected to act in such a casual and cavalier manner. We hereby caution the committee that, if 5 hereinafter, we come across such casual and cavalier approach on the part of the committee, we will be constrained to take a very serious view of the matter. 9] We, therefore, allow the petition in terms of prayer clause (A). The impugned order dated 30/12/2005 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 committee for considering the claim of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, and specifically in the light of the aforesaid observations. The petitioner shall remain present before the respondent No.2 committee on 30th September, 2009 and as such, the requirement of formal notices shall stand waived. The respondent NO.2 shall decide the claim of the petitioner within 3 months from the date on which the petitioner would appear before the committee. Rule made absolute in above terms, with no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-