B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---The scope of this petition, though initially limited to one particular issue regarding "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, has subsequently been widened so as to consider the issues arising out of the Mandal Commission Report and the judgment of the Apex Court in (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1993 S.C. 477, as well as in (Indra Sawhney v. Union of India)2, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 498 and it encompasses even to examine the scope of Other Backward Classes Commission's Procedure, powers for formulation of its recommendations to be made to the State Government as mandated by the law laid down in the said case. It also considers the contemporary social factors and indicators which are more relevant than the traditional or conventional indicators in identifying/determining the Other Backward Classes.

2. With more than fifty years of Independence and the high rate of urbanisation owing to developments in industry, business, etc. as also the spread of education, higher education both technical and specialised, the social fabric in the rural area does not remain to be the same as it was 50 years ago or in the pre-indendence era. The requirements of time have forced the members of various castes to leave their traditional occupations and take up the posts in the Government service or the private sector or the self-employed professionals such as Doctors, Advocates, Chartered Accountants, Consultants, Architects, Designers etc. and therefore, the original social affinity concept has lost its relevance amongst such persons who have switched over or migrated to the urban areas leaving behind their roots in the rural India. The social order in the rural India has also gone through a sea-change with the spread of education, growing awareness about the rights, social obligations and social interactions on account of marital ties, etc. It is in this background that the issues regarding determinations of Other Backward Classes or exclusion of certain castes from such classes by the Commission are required to be dealt with.

3. Though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29-5-1999 passed by respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste claim as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, pursuant to the order passed on 9-3-2001 the following issues were framed for considerations by a larger Bench of this Court:

i. Does the law laid down by this Court in the case of (Pandurang Rangnnath Chavan v. State of Maharashtra and others)3, 1998(4) Bom.C.R. 462 : 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 806, imply that every person who obtained a caste certificate as belonging to "Thakur/Thakar" Scheduled Tribe is required to be accepted by the Scrutiny Committee to be necessarily belonging to the said caste and his claim is required to be validated without any further inquiry as to whether he genuinely belongs to "Thakur/Thakar" caste, though the Committee is endowed with such powers as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions?

ii. Whether there is a case to direct the State Government, on the basis of the report submitted by the Expert Committee constituted by the Government vide Resolution dated 16-6-1983, to approach the Government of India for suitable amendments in Entry No. 44 of the Presidential Order of 1976 issued under Article 342 of the Constitution of India pertaining to the list of Scheduled Tribes as applicable to the State of Maharashtra?

iii. Whether there is a case to direct the State Government to take effective steps to undertake a study through the Other Backward Classes Commission constituted pursuant to the judgment in Indra Sawhney's case to exclude some of the castes from the existing list of Other Backward Classes (which are in all about 335) in view of the earlier judgment in (K.C. Vasantkumar v. State of Karnataka)3, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 1495, and approved in Indra Sawhney's case by the larger Bench?

iv. Whether the reports submitted by the Commission recommending inclusion of various castes