ASHISH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule is made returnable forthwith. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioner claims as belonging to Koli Mahadev scheduled tribe. He was issued with a tribe certificate but which has been cancelled and seized by the respondent No. 2- the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad constituted under 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 and the rules framed thereunder by the order under challenge.

(3.) Mr. Barlinge learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that the observations and the conclusions of the scrutiny committee are perverse and arbitrary. It has not considered the documents produced by the petitioner. There was utter lack of application of mind. The record of his blood relation Shantabai and Sayanna was overlooked. It has unnecessarily relied upon the alleged correction in the school record of one Vitthal, Vyankat and Sangita, to which school record the petitioner had no access. The decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors; 2009 (10) SCC 268 was clearly ignored. Reference has been made to record of some individuals who were not blood relatives of the petitioner. The order be quashed and set aside and the petitioner be issued validity certificate. Alternatively, the learned advocate would submit that the matter be remanded for a decision afresh by extending him an opportunity to lead additional evidence.