NIRAJ KAMLAKAR MORE Vs. SCHEDULED TRIBE CERTIFICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the fact that the issue arising in these petitions is identical, we had put the parties to the notice that the petitions will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, we are making a reference to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 2012. This is a case where the challenge is to the order dated 2nd December, 2011 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The petitioner applied for caste verification on the basis of the caste certificate dated 29th September, 2006, issued by the Deputy Collector and the District Supply Officer, Parbhani. The certificate issued was to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Thakur Caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. In the impugned order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee made a reference to the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The Caste Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the competent authority who issued caste certificate to the petitioner had no territorial jurisdiction to issue caste certificate and therefore, the certificate has been issued without jurisdiction. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, held the certificate to be invalid and directed that the certificate should be cancelled and confiscated accordingly. The Caste Scrutiny Committee granted liberty to the petitioner to obtain a fresh caste certificate in the manner prescribed by said Rules and submit it to the Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee made it clear that cancellation of the certificate is without affecting the merit of his claim. In other writ petitions, there are similar orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee wherein findings have been recorded that the caste certificates on the basis of which caste validity was sought were issued by the competent authorities having no territorial jurisdiction to issue the same.

(3.) The detailed submissions have been made in these petitions and in particular in Writ Petition No. 2016 of 2012 by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have heard submissions the learned A. G. P and the learned Counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committees.