1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4056 OF 1994. Tulsiram S/o Navalsing Patil, Aged 31 years, Occ.Nil, R/o Umarde, Tq.Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department, Mantralaya, Bombay-32. 2. The District Magistrate, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 3. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Social Welfare Department, Pune-1. 4. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3. Mr.D.S.Bagul, advocate for the Respondent NO.4. Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for the Respondent No.3. 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 23.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the show cause notice issued on 7.3.1994, by the District Magistrate, Jalgaon, directing the petitioner to submit his claim for verification of belonging to 'Rajput Bhamta' which is notified as 'Vimukta Jatis'. 2. The petition has been filed contending that in view of the judgment of the "Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others" AIR 1995 Supreme Court 94, the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim regarding scrutiny of the status of person belonging to particular caste/tribe. 3. The Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil has laid down procedure for 3 verifying the claims of the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The Apex Court has also laid down guidelines as to the formation of the Committees and provided that the expert be nominated on the said Committee. 4. Subsequently, the State Legislature has enacted such an such act which also provides for constitution of the Committees and the procedure to be adopted by them while deciding the claim of the person of belonging to caste. In that view of the matter, the Collector has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter relating to the scrutiny of the claim of the petitioner. The petition is, therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (C). The petitioner is directed to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee at Dhule on 12.7.2010. The Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from today. Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp405694 4