1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5316 OF 2009 Vitthal S/o.Narayan Shetewad, Age-30 years, Occu-Student, R/o.Manjaram, Tq.Naigaon (Kh.) District : Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Chairman, The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad, 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, RESPONDENTS Mrs. M.A.Kulkarni, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3 Mr.R.P.Phatake, learned counsel for respondent no.2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 14/08/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is finally heard at the stage of admission. 2 2. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad, dated 13/03/2009 in appeal no.99/2007 by which the Scrutiny Committee has upheld the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor, dated 07/05/2007 by which the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor has rejected the application filed by the applicant dated 21/12/2006 for issuance of caste certificate as he belongs to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe. 3. The facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as the applicant/petitioner herein has filed an application dated 21/12/2006 before the Sub Divisional officer, Degloor for issuance of caste certificate claiming that he belongs to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe. Alongwith the said application, the applicant/petitioner has produced various documents including the birth extract, caste certificate of his father in which the caste of his father was recorded as Koli Mahadev. By way of order dated 07/05/2007, the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor has rejected the application of the petitioner/applicant on the ground that the documents produced are not sufficient for issuance of the caste certificate as claimed by the applicant/petitioner. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad by appeal which was numbered as appeal no.99/2007. Vide order dated 13/03/2009, the Members of the Scrutiny Committee have upheld the order passed by the Sub 3 Divisional Officer, Degloor, as according to the Scrutiny Committee, the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor has rightly concluded that the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner is not sufficient to issue caste certificate as claimed for. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner followed by arguments of learned counsel appearing for the respondents. During the course of submissions across the bar, our attention is drawn towards the documentary evidence produced before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor which shows that alongwith the application, the applicant has produced the caste certificate issued in the name of father of the applicant petitioner dated 13/08/1982 and the birth extract of the father of the applicant in which his caste is shown as Koli Mahadev. It is but natural that the son is entitled for the caste of his father. Thus the fact is clear that the documentary evidence tendered by the applicant/petitioner before the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor was not properly appreciated by the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and come to the erroneous conclusion which was upheld by the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad in appeal. Thus the order impugned in the present writ petition passed by the Members of the Scrutiny Committee as well as the Sub Divisional Officer Degloor is liable to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order. We hereby direct the Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor to issue caste certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to Koli Mahadev, Scheduled Tribe forthwith. 4 5. Needless to say that the caste certificate so issued would be subject to verification by the competent Scrutiny Committee. 6. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above, and accordingly the writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp5316-09