ROHIT RANJEETSINGH RATHOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, dated 30-4-2009 holding the petitioner's caste claim as invalid. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Rajput Bhamta and he submitted his Caste Certificate for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. The caste claim of the petitioner came to be decided by the Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted under the notification dated 12-2-2009 under section 6 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 i.e. Act Maharashtra Act No, XXIII of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By the said notification the Government has constituted various Scrutiny Committees for various areas. Paragraph 2 of the notification provides as follows : 2. Each Scrutiny Committee shall consist of the following members, namely: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_384_MHLJ2_2010Html1.htm</FRM> 2. Accordingly, the petitioner's case was decided by the Scrutiny Committee comprising of (1) Research Officer and Member Secretary, (2) Member and Divisional Social Welfare Officer, and (3) Additional Collector,Nagpur.

(3.) Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner has thus assailed the decision by the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee has not been constituted in accordance with law, in that the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee was the Additional Collector, Nagpur, whereas the Supreme Court has in the case Ku. Madhuri Patil and another vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, reported in AIR 199,7 SC 2581, clearly laid down in paragraph 4 as follows :