1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1486 OF 2010 Suchita d/o Datta Surewad, Age Minor, Occu. Education, Through natural Guardian/father Shri Datta S/o Laxman Surewad, Age 38 years, Occu. Agril., R/o at Post Barbada, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad . 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Shri R.P. Phatake, Advocate for respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION No. 1518 of 2010 Sachin s/o Datta Surewad, Age Minor, Occu. Education, Through natural Guardian/father Shri Datta S/o Laxman Surewad, Age 38 years, Occu. Agril., 2 R/o at Post Barbada, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded. .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it’s Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad . 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded. RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.D. Godbharle, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Shri R.P. Phatake, Advocate for respondent No. 2. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY 2010. PER COURT: (S.S. Shinde,J.) 1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 3 These Writ petitions by bother and sister take exception to the decision dated 22-09-2009 passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangbabad confirming the order dated 07-07-2009 passed by the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded . 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to ‘Munerwarlu-Scheduled Tribe’ which is notified and recognised as Scheduled Tribe. On 07-06-2008 the petitioners applied for issuance of Tribe Certificate in favour of them to the respondent No.2 i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded. It is the case of the petitioners that, the competent authority issued tribe certificate of ‘Munerwarlu-Scheduled Tribe’ in favour of petitioner’s father namely Datta Surewad as well as Committee validated the claim of the petitioners cousin brother namely Madhav Girjaji Surewad and petitioners uncle namely Saheb Laxman Surewad. It is the case of the petitioners that, without considering the facts, 4 documents and evidence the respondent No.3- Committee rejected the applications of the petitioners for issuance of ‘Munerwarlu-Scheduled Tribe’ certificate. The Appellate authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioners without any separate reasons than assigned by the respondent No. 3 /Competent authority. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Committee has vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that, the impugned decision is founded on sound reasons and does not call for interference in Writ jurisdiction. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned order of the competent authority as well as decision of the respondent No. 2- Committee and also documents placed on record. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, rejected the applications of the petitioners on the ground that, upon perusal of field book of Barbada, Tq. Naigaon, Dist. Nanded the entry ‘Manurwar’ appears in the record of the grand father of the 5 applicant namely Tukaram Sivna. It is pertinent to note that, in pursuance of Rule 4(9) of Scheduled Tribe Rules, 2003 framed under Maharashtra Caste Verification Act, 2000 concerned Revenue Officer has recommended for issuance of Caste Certificate in favour of the petitioners. However, the competent authority failed to take into consideration said recommendations. 4. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the Scrutiny Committee who in-turn rejected the appeal by following reasons recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor. The said order is reads as thus :- “ The appellant Kum. Suchita Datta Surewad at Post Barbada, Tq. Naigaon(kh), Dist. Nanded requested the Sub Divisional Officer Degloor, Dist. Nanded to issue her a Tribe Certificate belonging to “Mannervarlu” Scheduled Tribe, but the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded refused to issue the same vide their order dated 07-07-2009 and therefore the Appellant filed an appeal before the Committee against the order of Sub Divisional 6 Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded vide application dated 29-07-2009. The Scrutiny Committee deeply observed the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded and the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant along with the proposal and the Committee have come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, Dist. Nanded is satisfactory and therefore the Committee is agreed with the decision taken by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor in the said case and Hence, the said appeal is rejected by the Committee.” 5. Having considered the rival submissions, in our opinion, neither the approach of the Sub Divisional Officer nor that of the Scrutiny Committee can stand the test of the judicial scrutiny. Indeed, the Sub Divisional Officer has noted that in the father’s School admission extract, birth certificate, School leaving certificate, residence certificate, caste certificate, validity certificate, service book extract and affidavit of father of the applicant caste is mentioned as ‘Manerwarlu-Scheduled 7 Tribe’. The Sub Divisional Officer has noted that the document at serial No. 7 i.e. the Validity certificate of Shri Madhav Girjaji Surewad has been submitted and has taken note of other documents in support of petitioner’s claim. However, failed to appreciate the said documents. The approach of the competent authority in rejecting the application of the petitioners for issuance of ‘Manerwarlu-Scheduled Tribe’ is wholly unsustainable, in view of the fact that, the very competent authority has issued Tribe Certificate in favour of the father of the petitioners. 6. In so far as the Scrutiny Committee is concerned, it has merely agreed with the opinion of the Sub Divisional Officer without recording any finding of its own. The Scrutiny Committee has not even bothered to analyze the documents produced by the petitioner, though it was dealing with the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner. The approach of the Scrutiny Committee to say the least, is perverse. 8 7. In the above stated back ground, we quash and set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor as well as respondent No.2-Committee and direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue provisional tribe certificate belonging to ‘Manerwarlu-Scheduled Tribe’ in favour of the present petitioners within two weeks from today. It is needless to mention that, the said caste certificate will be subject to validation by the respondent No.2- Committee. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Writ Petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] SDM* WP1486.10