KISHAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

(2.) The claim of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for deciding the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. In support of the claim of the petitioner, in respect of his tribe, the petitioner had submitted a caste certificate issued to him by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, dated 29.2.1993 in which the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Mahadeo Koli. The petitioner had also submitted a certificate granted to him by the Head Master of the Central Primary School, denoting the caste as Koli. Another certificate came to be submitted by the petitioner issued by Parishad Prashala, Ranisavargaon, in which the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. A xerox copy of the school leaving certificate of the petitioner issued by Parishad Prashala, Ranisavargaon, taluka Gangakhed,dist. Parbhani, also records caste of the petitioner as Koli. The petitioner had submitted caste certificate of his relative by name Santosh Uttamrao Suryawad which was issued by the Executive Magistrate, Hingoli, in which the caste of the relative of the petitioner was recorded as Mahadeo Koli. The petitioner had submitted xerox copy of the caste certificate of the cousin of the petitioner in which the caste was recorded as Mahadeo Koli. Another certificate submitted by the petitioner in respect of the relative of the petitioner also showed the caste as Mahadeo Koli.

(3.) Thus, the perusal of the aforesaid certificates would show that the certificate which is enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee at Sr.No.2 shows that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. Similarly, the certificate enlisted at Sr.No.3 also showed that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. Certificate enlisted at Sr.No.4 also showed that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as Koli. The other certificates pertain to the relatives of the petitioner whose caste claim obviously had not been considered by the respondent Scrutiny Committee and there was no determination of the caste claim of those relatives. The report of the Vigilence Cell, which was submitted before the Committee on 26.3.1999 expressed that the certificate alleged to have been issued by the Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, dated 29.2.1993, had not been issued from the office of the Executive Magistrate.