{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4801 OF 2009 Ashok Shankarrao Kalmurge Through his guardian, elder brother Rahul Shankarrao Kalmurge R/o Biloli, Dist-Nanded PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims Through its Dy. Director (Research) Aurangabad 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Degloor, Dist-Nanded RESPONDENTS ........ Mr.A.H.Koralkar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 24 th July 2009 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor dated 31.01.2009 rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuing a caste certificate and the order of the Scrutiny Committee in appeal, dated 30.03.2009, confirming the same. 3. The petitioner, who was desirous of obtaining caste certificate as belonging to Mannerwarlu Scheduled Tribe, submitted an application and relied upon relevant documents, which are enlisted in the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The aforesaid documents at serial No.1 to 5, pertained to the petitioner himself while document at serial No.6 is an affidavit sworn by the petitioner in respect of his illiteracy and document No.7 is a validity certificate issued in favour of his maternal uncle. Similar is the case relating to the document at serial No.8, which is in respect of relatives of the petitioner whose caste is not germane for decision of the caste claim of the petitioner. In the light of paucity of evidence, the Sub Divisional Officer rejected the application. We do not find fault with the reasoning of the Sub Divisional Officer, however, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the {3} petitioner has annexed to this petition a document at Exhibit-I i.e. validity certificate issued to Ritesh Shankarrao Kalmurge. We have perused the genealogy, which is annexed to the petition. According to us, since the relative is from maternal side, no reliance could be placed on the same. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in possession of a validity certificate issued to a blood relative of the petitioner from paternal side. The petitioner, if he so desires, may produce the document before the Sub Divisional Officer. In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned orders and permit the petitioner to produce additional evidence other than the documents, which were produced by the petitioner earlier. We direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law, in the event the petitioner submits a fresh application along with additional documents. This be done as expeditiously as possible. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp4801-09