SARVESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for respondent Nos.1 and 2, learned advocate Mr. Karlekar waives service for respondent No.3. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding under Sec. 7 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (the Act) thereby discarding his claim as belonging to "Mannervarlu" scheduled tribe and seizing and cancelling the certificate issued to him by the competent authority.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr. Barlinge for the petitioner would take us through the papers and would submit that a genuine claim of the petitioner has been discarded by the Committee for no valid reason. There were no contrary entries. The school record of some individuals who are not related to him by blood have been relied upon. Some error in mentioning the name of the petitioner's blood relatives has been heavily relied upon to jump to the conclusion that his claim was false. The committee has illegally applied the test regarding migration and has also unnecessarily invoked affinity test in spite of the decision in the matter of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2023 SCC Online SC 326. Though the committee has observed that some forgery was found in respect of the school record and the FIR was lodged, till date there is no charge-sheet at least to the knowledge of the petitioner.