1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9499 OF 2010 Suryakant Narayan Pallewad ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO. 9501 OF 2010 Anil s/o. Shankarrao Pallewad ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents. Mr. G.K. Kshirsagar h/f. Mr. H.S. Bali, Advocate for petitioners in both petitions. Mr. K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent -State in both petitions. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No. 2 in both petitions. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 11th October, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By way of present petitions, the respective petitioners impugn the orders dated 1st February 2010, passed by the respondent No. 3 - Sub- Divisional Officer, thereby rejecting the applications filed by the present petitioners for grant of caste certificate as belonging to "Mannerwarlu", which is notified as Scheduled Tribe and the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee dated 15th of April 2010, thereby 2 rejecting the appeals filed by the present petitioners. 2. The petitioners, claiming to be belonging to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe, applied to the respondent No. 3 for grant of caste certificate. Along with the applications, they have produced various documents in support of their claims. However, their claims came to be rejected, on the ground that the entry in the fieldbook of village Godamgaon in respect of caste of petitioner's grandfather Ganpati Narayana came to recorded as "Munnerwar". Being aggrieved thereby, the appeals were preferred by the petitioners. The same are dismissed by the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee. Hence, the present petitions. 3. Shri. Kshirsagar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in both petitions submits that various documents were submitted by the petitioners, however, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, without considering the same, have rejected the applications filed by the petitioners. He further submits that as a matter of fact Ganpati Narayan is not the grandfather of the present petitioners. He further submits that as a matter of fact one Mahajan Baba Pallewad is the grandfather of the present petitioners. 4. The parameters, that the authorities are required to take into consideration, while granting caste certificate and while validating the 3 same, are different. While grant of caste certificate, the authority is required to consider the prima facie evidence to satisfy, as to whether a person, claiming to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, has prima facie material to substantiate his claim. A detailed and deeper scrutiny is permissible, only at the stage, when the respondent - Scrutiny Committee considers the matter, as to whether the claim of a person is valid or not. We find that in the present case, the petitioner has submitted the certificate issued to him by Talathi, Sarpanch and Police Patil. The entries in the school records of the petitioners also show that his caste is "Mannerwarlu". The petitioners have also produced on record the validity certificates issued in favour of their cousin and affidavit filed by the said cousin along with the genealogy of the family tree. We, therefore, find that the petitioners have produced prima facie material to show that the petitioners belonged to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. 5. Though the appellate authority states that it has made deeper scrutiny, we find that even there is not a whisper as to why it concurs with the findings of the first authority. We find that that the appellate authority i.e. respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, while deciding the appeals, has passed the orders in casual and cavalier manner. Though it observes that it has deeply scrutinize the matters, the reasons as to why such orders are passed by the Scrutiny Committee are not to be found in 4 it. The respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee is enjoined with quasi judicial powers. A authority, enjoined with quasi judicial powers, cannot be permitted to act in such a casual and cavalier manner. We deprecate the practice of respondent - Scrutiny Committee in passing such cyclo-styled orders and expect the Scrutiny Committee to be careful in future while passing orders. 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 3 is directed to issue a certificate, certifying that the petitioners are belonging to "Mannerwarlu", which is notified as Scheduled Tribe. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not be taken into consideration by the respondent No. 2 while considering the claim of the present petitioners for grant of validity. Authenticated Copy of this order be supplied to Shri. Phatke, learned Standing Counsel for Scrutiny Committee to intimate the order to the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members of the Committee. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp9499.10