{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3405 OF 2009 Anil Bashett Chappalwar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner, Mr.V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondents No.1 and 3 Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. and A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 17 th July 2009 ORAL ORDER (Per A.V.Potdar, J.): 1. By the present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 30.03.2009. 2. Rule. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission itself. {2} 4. The facts, which gave rise to file the present petition can be summarized as under - The petitioner had filed an application before respondent No. 3 for issuance of a Caste certificate on 16.01.2009. He has annexed all the requisite documents along with the said application i.e. his affidavit, school leaving certificate issued by Primary School, Deglur, caste certificates issued by Police Patil, Talathi and Circle Inspector of Deglur, caste validity certificate of Balaram Mashnaji Chppalwar, affidavit of said Balaram giving genealogy showing interse relationship between petitioner and caste validity holder, who claimed to be the real cousin uncle of the petitioner, caste validity certificate of Sapna Suresh Chappalwar, and other close relatives, Panchanama drawn by Circle Inspector, Deglur, certificate in respect of inquiry conducted by Circle Inspector, Deglur along with statements of the residents in close vicinity. Inspite of all these documents, by order dated 03.02.2009, the respondent No.3 refused to issue caste certificate to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 03.02.2009, a statutory appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee. It appears that without considering the documents, produced by the petitioner along with the application, straight way, the Committee upheld the order passed by respondent No.3, vide order dated 30.03.2009. Being aggrieved by {3} the said order dated 30.03.2009, the petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the same. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the petition. At the outset, it is to be noted that on perusal of the order passed by respondent No.3, we do not find anywhere the reasoning given by him as to why he has discarded the evidence produced before him while refusing to issue caste certificate. Likewise, on perusal of the order dated 30.03.2009 passed by Scrutiny Committee, in cursory manner it is observed that “the Scrutiny Committee deeply observed the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Degloor and the documentary evidence 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 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”. On perusal of both the orders, it is clear that they are not sustainable in law as the same are not reasoned orders and are passed without appreciation of evidence laid by the petitioner. 6. Along with the petition an order dated 31.03.2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1430/2009 is also annexed. Para No.4 and 5 of the said order read as follows : {4} “4. The sub Divisional Office has discarded all these documents on the ground that it was not necessary to issue a caste certificate merely because a member of the family had been issued such a certificate. Reliance was placed by him on the judgment in writ petition No.2773/1989 (2004 ALL MR 512) in support of his view. Surprisingly, the Scrutiny Committee has concurred with the view taken by the Sub Divisional Officer. The question of discarding the Caste validity certificate of a member of a family, would arise only when the scrutiny committee considers, whether the caste certificate issued in favour of a person should be validated. The Sub Divisional Officer has at the threshold, decided by misinterpreting the judgment aforesaid, that the petitioner should not be issued a caste certificate indicating that he belongs to the “Koli Mahadeo” Tribe. 5. In our opinion, both the orders must be set aside. There is sufficient material on record to indicate, prima facie, that the petitioner does not beloong to the “Koli Mahadeo” Tribe. We, therefore, set aside the orders passed and direct the sub Divisional Officer to issue a Caste certificate in favour of the petitioner indicating that he belongs to the “Koli Mahadeo” Tribe” 7. It is observed in the judgment reported in 2009 (4) ALL MR 127 in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur V/s State of Maharashtra, by the Full Bench of this Court, to which one of us (Mr.V.C.Daga, J.) was a party. In the group of writ petitions, guide lines about nature of inquiry to be conducted by the competent Authority before it issues a caste or tribe certificate are given in Para 21 of the said judgment read as under : “THE NATURE OF THE ENQUIRY 21. The provisions of the Act and the Rules establish that the Legislature and the State Government as the rule making authority contemplated a broadbased inquiry into all {5} relevant facets of the claim of an applicant to belong to a Scheduled Tribe. The inquiry is essentially in two stages: the first, when a caste certificate is issued to a candidate and the second when a caste certificate is to be verified. In the first stage, an application for the issuance of a caste certificate has to be accompanied by a disclose not merely of documentary evidence but additional information which would have a bearing on the kinship and affinity of the applicant to the Scheduled Tribe. The Competent Authority, before it issues a caste certificate, has to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claim. Even at the stage of the issuance of a caste certificate, the Competent Authority has to verify the documents with the originals and it is only upon its satisfaction about the correctness of the information, documents and the evidence furnished by the applicant that a tribe certificate is issued. If the Competent Authority is not satisfied with the claim of the applicant on a scrutiny of the evidence produced, it is empowered to order a further inquiry. Thereupon, it is after considering the evidence produced by the applicant, the statement of the applicant and after taking into account the material gathered by the Competent Authority that it is empowered to either grant a certificate or to reject the application. The condition precedent to the grant of a caste certificate is the satisfaction of the Competent Authority about the genuineness of the claim made by the applicant. Just as the disclosure by the candidate is not confined to documentary material alone, the satisfaction of the Competent Authority equally is as regards the genuineness of the claim. The genuineness of the claim has to be verified on the basis of the entire material including information, documents and evidence. An inquiry into kinship and the affinity of the applicant is not alien to the scheme of the Act and the Rules. On the contrary, application of the affinity test is an integral part of the process. The process of issuing a caste certificate by the Competent Authority is not ministerial or formal. Satisfaction of the genuineness of the claim can be arrived at only through an objective enquiry. The enquiry before the Competent Authority is not confined only to an examination of documents. The Competent {6} Authority is under a mandate to consider the information, documents and evidence. Similarly, the mandate of disclosure by the applicant is not confined only to a disclosure of documents. The process before the Competent Authority is hence an important first stage in determining the genuineness of the claim. The statutory provisions and the provisions made by the rule making authority clearly emphasize that the affinity test is not extraneous or ultra vires. 8. In the light of the judgments of the Division Bench as well as Full Bench of this Court, the nature of analysis and appreciation of documents at the time of issuance of caste certificate are clear. On perusal of the orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer and Scrutiny Committee, it prima facie appears that neither the Sub Divisional Officer nor the Scrutiny Committee has taken pains to appreciate and consider the documentary evidence tendered by the petitioner in support of his claim. Thus, the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and Scrutiny Committee are without application of mind and require to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the orders dated 03.02.2009 passed by Sub Divisional Officer and dated 30.03.2009 passed by Scrutiny Committee are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Competent Authority for consideration afresh in accordance with law and to dispose of the same within a period of 6 months from the date of this order, by conducing inquiry as guided in the judgments cited supra. 9. Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. Writ {7} petition disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 10. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 29th July 2009. Advocate for petitioner to communicate the same to the petitioner. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [V.C.DAGA, J.] drp/wp3405-09