1 W.P.No. 1491 of 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1491 OF 2006 Navnath Ganpatrao Walkale, aged 19 years, occ.education, r/o Khutmapur, Post Kokalgaon Tq. Degloor, District Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra (through the Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai) 2. The Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (through its Member Secretary and Deputy Director (Research) Aurangabad 3. The Collector, Nanded 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer Degloor, Dist. Nanded 5. Kai. Mahesh Savkar Poreddiwar College of Education, Dhanora Tq. Dhonora, Dist. Gadchiroli ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr K.B. Choudhari, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents no.1, 3 & 4; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 30th March, 2011 2 W.P.No. 1491 of 2006 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 13th September, 2005. The petitioner had contended before the Committee that he belonged to the "Koli Mahadev" - tribe and, therefore, ought to be issued a validity certificate indicating that he belong to that tribe. The Scrutiny Committee, after considering the vigilance cell report as well as other documents on record, has found that the petitioner did not belong to the "Koli Mahadev" tribe. It has held that the petitioner's family originally was from the "Koli" community. Reliance has been placed by the Scrutiny Committee on the admission certificates of the petitioner's father, his aunt and another relative, of 1963 indicating that all these persons were "Kolis". It appears that these certificates were of the pre-primary school attended by these persons. Thereafter the petitioner's father's caste has been recorded as "Koli Mahadev" in the primary school attended by him at Khutmapur in Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. 3. The petitioner has produced before us the extract from the police station. According to him his grand-father had been arrested for certain offences in 1946. The grand-father's caste has been recorded as 3 W.P.No. 1491 of 2006 "Mahadev Koli" in these records. The petitioner, therefore, submits that this document which was not produced before the Scrutiny Committee ought to be considered by the Committee now. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the vigilance cell report has been discarded by the Committee although the affinity test has been cleared by the petitioner. 4. Considering the argument on behalf of the petitioner and the fact that there does appear to be a record of one Maroti Balu Walkale, whom the petitioner claims as his grand-father indicating that he was a Mahadev Koli, in our opinion, it is desirable that the Scrutiny Committee considers the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee is, therefore, set aside. The petitioner shall produce the certificate which is annexed at Exhibit "J" to the petition before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee will consider this certificate and decide whether it has any bearing on the tribe claim of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee will also reconsider the vigilance cell report which appears to be in favour of the petitioner. We expect the Scrutiny Committee to hear the petitioner in respect of the vigilance cell report, if it desires to discard that report . We have noted that out of the 12 documents which the vigilance cell had relied on it had found eight persons who were related to the petitioner were from the Mahadev Koli tribe and it is in these circumstances, the vigilance cell report was issued in favour of the petitioner. 4 W.P.No. 1491 of 2006 5. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 18.4.2011. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) amj/wp1491.06