1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 661 OF 2009 Gangaram Nivrutti Sarje Age 43 yeas, Occ. Service, R/o. Vayas Nagar, Naldurga, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Petitioner/s Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai. 2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad 3] The Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Tuljapur Dist. Osmanabad. 4] The Zilla Parishad (Though its Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad.) .. Respondent/s. --- Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1 and 3. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. P.R. Kadam, Advocate holding for Mr. K.J. Ghute Patil Advocate for the respondent No.4. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : - 14th October, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] From the genealogy which is placed on record, it appears that the 3 members, who are closely related to the applicant have been held to be belonging to “Mahadeo Koli”. Though these documents have been produced before the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has not considered the said documents in its correct perspective. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in “Miss Madhuri Patil Vs. Collector” the Committee has stated that each and every case has to be considered on the backdrop of its own facts. 3] No doubt, each and every case has to be considered independently by the Committee. However, when the Scrutiny Committee discards such an important piece of evidence, it is at least expected that some reasons are given for the findings arrived at by the committee. Same is the case with the documents filed by the petitioner, which pertains to the pre- constitutional era, i.e. 1356 and 1358 Fasli. 3 4] In that view of the matter, we find that the respondent Scrutiny Committee has not considered these documents at all. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the matter afresh , in accordance with law and the aforesaid observations. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 9th November, 2009. The Committee shall decide the matter within 3 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Committee. Needless to mention that the Committee shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the matter. Rule made absolute in above terms with no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-