FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2011 " Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. N.N. Kakade, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondents. CORAM :- D.B. BHOSALE & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE :- 9th AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner, in the present petition, is seeking the following relief :- “That by issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the like nature, the order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 18.2.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions to respondent authorities to issue a caste certificate in favour of the petitioner as belonging to TADVI-13 Tribe within stipulated period of time.” 3] Respondent No.3, in reply affidavit dated 3/8/2011 has stated that the application made by the petitioner for seeking FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2011 " Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 tribe certificate is still pending, though, through inadvertence, the petitioner was informed by the impugned communication dated 18/2/2011 that it has been rejected. 4] We have perused the communication dated 18/2/2011 asking the petitioner to produce revenue record and report of the Circle Officer in respect of making home enquiry. We fail to understand as to why the S.D.O. is insisting for these documents. From bare perusal of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes ( Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003, and, more particularly, Rule 3 thereof, it is clear that no such documents are necessary for deciding the petitioner's application for issuance of tribe certificate. A Corrigendum issued on 13th September, 2005, (Exhibit R-2 to the reply affidavit) does not make any reference to the revenue record. Insofar as home enquiry is concerned, that is necessary only if the S.D.O. has any doubt about the petitioner's claim. The impugned letter does not make reference to such doubt being raised by the S.D.O. 5] We have perused the annexures to the writ petition, so also, the order passed by the scrutiny committee dated 27/2/2009 passed on petitioner's appeal. From perusal of the FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2822 OF 2011 " Khan Humariya Tazeen Iliyas Shah Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 document annexed to the writ petition and the order of the scrutiny committee, it is clear that tribe certificate has already been issued in favour of petitioner's grand father and father, apart from the fact that caste validity certificates are also obtained by his other close relatives. The petitioner has placed all that material before the S.D.O. 6] In the circumstances, the S.D.O. is directed to decide the petitioner's application, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of 5 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner to produce copy of this order before the concerned S.D.O. within a period of one week from today. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. [S.B. DESHMUKH,J.] [D.B. BHOSALE, J.] grt/-