1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2418 OF 2010. Shaikh Osmanshah S/o Haji Sandu Shah, Age 40 years, Occ.Labour & Social worker R/o Shareef Colony, Tq. and Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Collector, Aurangabad. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Aurangabad. 4. TheTahsildar, Aurangabad. 5. The Regional Caste Scrutiny Committee-1, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.Sk.A.T.Patel, advocate for the petitioner. 2 Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 21.04.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Respondent Scrutiny Committee dated 24.2.2010 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Chapperband (V.J.). 3. At the out-set, Mr.R.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that though inadvertently the validity certificate granted to second cousin of the petitioner was available with the petitioner, yet, same was not 3 produced before the Respondent Scrutiny Committee. It is urged before us that the validity granted to the second cousin of the petitioner is a vital document which would go to the root of the matter and ultimately affect not only the petitioner and his other family members but would also affect the other blood related. It is further stated that the petitioner has filed the affidavit of the second cousin who has been granted the validity certificate. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader urges before us for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the aforesaid documents were available with the petitioner, yet, were not tendered for scrutiny before the Respondent Scrutiny Committee. 4. It is true that the said document namely the validity certificate which was granted to the second cousin, on 5.10.2008, was available for the petitioner to have produced before the Respondent Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has no doubt been negligent in not producing the said document which were, according to the petitioner of vital importance to the petitioner. 4 However, in the light of the fact that by virtue of the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee, the caste status of not only the petitioner but his other family members and other blood related is determined, we are inclined to allow this petition and remit the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh after considering the documents which the petitioner intends to produce before Scrutiny Committee. 5. We accordingly, allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the Respondent Scrutiny Committee, giving an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the validity certificate, dated 5.10.2008, issued in favour of his second cousin as well as the affidavit of his second cousin. We direct the Respondents Scrutiny Committee to examine the aforesaid document and deal with it in accordance with law and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. In order to ensure that there is no unnecessary delay, we direct the petitioner to appear before Respondent Scrutiny Committee on 28.4.2010 and 5 direct the Respondent Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner afresh within four (4) months of 28.4.2010. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp2418.10