PRAKASH SHIVRAM NIKUMBH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

(2.) The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, thereby assailing the order dtd. 23/7/2015 passed by respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur rejecting the applications of the petitioners for issuance of caste certificates, so also the order dtd. 21/6/2018 passed by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee confirming the order of Sub Divisional Officer.

(3.) Mr. Paithane, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had submitted the proposal for issuance of caste certificates with respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Shirpur, who is the competent authority. The petitioners had submitted supporting documents like school leaving certificates, wherein caste is recorded as 'Tokre Koli', Scheduled Tribe, the caste certificate issued in favour of petitioner no.1 as belonging to the 'Tokre Koli', Scheduled Tribe dtd. 4/9/1980, the caste certificate issued by Tahsildar, Sindkheda in favour of Shivram Nimba Nikumbh i.e. father of petitioner no.1 and the genealogy in the form of affidavit alongwith certificates issued by the Talathi and Sarpanch of village Shewade, Tq. Sindkheda. All these documents clearly depict the caste status of the petitioners as belonging to 'Tokre Koli', Scheduled Tribe. However, respondent no.2 discarded the aforesaid evidence giving reason that the documents are of recent past i.e. issued 1970 onwards. Similarly, respondent no.3 entered into deeper enquiry and by referring to some contra entries, refused to entertain the applications of the petitioners. The aggrieved petitioners had approached respondent no.2-Committee in its appellate jurisdiction in terms of Sec. 5(2) of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 (for short 'Act of 2001') challenging order of respondent No.3. However, respondent-Committee exceeded the appellate jurisdiction conferred under Sec. 5(2) of the Act of 2001 and called for the report of Vigilance Officer alongwith certain documents and consequently rejected the Appeal relying upon report of Vigilance Officer and documents appended thereto.