1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5991 OF 1999 Yogendra s/o Punaji Lohar, Age 31 years, Occu.Service, R/o Betawad, Tq. Sindkheda, District Dhule, presently residing at 6, Digvijay Apartments, Plot No.95-96, Kher Section, Ambarnath (East), Dist.Thane .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik 3. The District Magistrate, Dhule 4. The Tahsildar, Sindkheda, District Dhule .. Respondents Shri Pradip R.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1,3 & 4 Shri B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 9th September 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. The petitioner has filed two civil applications for amendment of the petition which came to be allowed. By virtue 2 of the amended petition, the petitioner has placed on record validity certificates granted to three real brothers of the petitioner by name Prabhakar, Vikas and Madhukar. The aforesaid brothers of the petitioner had been granted validity certificates during the pendency of this petition. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has impugned the order of the committee dated 30.10.1999 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Gadi Lohar caste. 2. In the light of the fact that the three real brothers of the petitioner have been granted validity certificates during the pendency of this petition, we are inclined to allow this petition and remit the matter back to the respondent – scrutiny committee. Shri B.L.Sagar Killarikar, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 – committee states that the brothers of the petitioner have fraudulently obtained the validity certificates by not disclosing their real surname and the committee, therefore, would be examining the validity granted to the brothers of the petitioner too. 3. Be that as it may, since the three real brothers of the petitioner have been granted validity certificates by the Committee, according to us the claim of the petitioner as belonging to Gadi Lohar caste is required to be examined by the 3 Committee afresh in the light of the aforesaid documents and other documents which the petitioner may produce before the Committee. 4. In the light of that, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondent – Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. In order to ensure that the caste claim of the petitioner is decided expeditiously, we direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – scrutiny committee at Dhule on 22nd September 2009 and further direct the Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner within six months of 22nd September 2009. 5. Since an interim order has been operating restraining the employer from taking any adverse action against the petitioner during the pendency of this petition and since we have remitted the matter back to the respondent – scrutiny committee for a decision afresh, we direct Municipal Corporation, Kalyan-Dombivli not to take any adverse action against the petitioner solely on the ground that the claim is pending before the respondent – scrutiny committee. Further action, if any, to be taken on the basis of the decision of the scrutiny committee. 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/5991.99wp 5 WRIT PETITION NO.5991 OF 1999 Date of decision : 9th September 2009 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reorter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [ V.V.RASAL] Personal Assistant to the Honourable Judge