A. H. JOSHI, J.:- Petitioners in all these petitions are Corporations elected to the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur from the Constituencies reserved for Scheduled Tribe.

They all claimed to belong to "Halba" Scheduled Tribe". While contesting the elections they had not obtained their caste validity certificates.

They applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Caste Certificate Act") for scrutiny of their caste claims. The Committee, by its impugned orders dated 13th June, 2007, invalidated the claim of the petitioners in each of these petitions to belong to Halba Schedu1ed Tribe. As a consequence, respondent No.3 Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur unseated them by his communication dated 16th June, 2007. Aggrieved by the decision of Caste Scrutiny Committee, the petitioners have approached this Court by present petitions.

2. Notices were issued to the respondents. By consent of the parties the petitions were taken up for final hearing by making Rule returnable forthwith.

3. Another Corporator Shri. Deorao Ganpatrao Umredkar, who was elected as Mayor of Nagpur as the post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe, and who too claimed to belong to Halba Scheduled Tribe, was 1ikewise unseated by order dated 16th June, 2007 as a sequel to inva1idation of his caste claim by Scrutiny Committee on 13th June, 2007. He too approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2576 of 2007 against the decision of the Scrutiny Committee, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 6th Ju1y, 2007.

4. The petitioners in these petitions have assailed the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on almost similar lines as in the petition filed by Shri. Deorao Umredkar. The challenges are identical and have been substantially dealt with in the judgment dismissing Writ Petition No.2576 of 2007. As far as grounds, raised by the petitioner in these petitions which are same as in Shri. Deorao Umredkar's petition, the reasons given while dismissing his Writ Petition No.2576 of 2007 need not be repeated in this judgment. This judgment is restricted to the grounds made out by the petitioners which are personal to them, while referring to the common grounds only to the extent necessary.

5. We have perused records in all cases of petitioners. We find that certain factual aspects as to furnishing of information by respective petitioner and evidence etc. are monotonous. In all cases Petitioners' Advocate gave monotonous letter through Advocate on 2-3-2007 filing Vakalatnama. Filed xerox copy of affidavit of the petitioner along with advocates letter dated 8-3-2007 and furnished copies of books etc. The petitioners have disputed correctness of Vigilance Cell report by communication dated 14-5-2007 and called it to be false, also demanded that unless the petitioners are granted adjournment for three months they would not furnish reply. The petitioners have in same case furnished affidavit of Nanaji Tulshiram Parate giving pedigree. The petitioner again submitted application on 22-0'12007 made allegations against the Vigilance Cell.

The petitioners have not furnished independent evidence.

6. The petitioners have also assailed the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the Research Officer associated with the Vigilance Cell was not duly qualified and did not have expertise in respect of Halba Tribe. Therefore, there was no compliance to the requirement in the judgment of Ku. Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported at AIR 1995 SC 95 : 2007 ALL SCR (O.C.C.) 1. The Vigilance Cell itself was not constituted properly and hence. the entire procedure was vitiated.

7. The petitioner claimed that her request for cross-examination of the officers of Vigilance Cell had