F.I. Rebello, J.

Rule.

By consent, heard forthwith.

1. Considering the controversy, we had requested the learned Advocate General to assist the Court.

2. The main question for consideration apart from the ancilliary questions is “Whether report of the Research Officer associated with the committee is evidence which can be considered for rejecting the tribe claim of the applicant without giving an opportunity to the applicant to cross-examine the Research Officer if request is so made?”

3. We shall first address ourselves to this main question. The petitioner claims to belong to Thakur tribe which is a notified scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner is working in the office of the respondent no.4. By the present petition, the petitioner is impugning the order dated 27th April, 2007 passed by the respondent no.2 committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe.

4. The petitioner was granted a caste certificate by the respondent no. 4 on 10th December, 1997 as belonging to the Thakur tribe. The petitioner relied on various documents which include entries in school records of himself, his family members as also death certificates of his relatives where the tribe was shown as Thakur. The petitioner submitted an application on 26th September, 2005 directly to the committee for verification of his certificate along with documentary evidence.

5. The Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell of respondent no.4 interviewed the uncle of the petitioner as also examined him as to the traits and characteristics and obtained the genelogy tree of the family of the petitioner. The entries from the school records in respect of the relatives of the petitioner were also examined. A report was submitted to the committee on 27th February, 2006. By a show cause notice dated 14th March, 2006 the petitioner was called to file reply on or before 31st March, 2006. In the show cause notice it was set out that an inquiry has been completed by the vigilance cell and as several aspects of the claim were found to be inconsistent, petitioner was asked to give his say in writing and also to remain present. The petitioner filed a reply on 30th March 2007 explaining various aspects including the documents and also pointed out the legal position governing the issuance of caste validity certificate and to grant him an opportunity of hearing.

6. According to the petitioner, he was directed to appear before the committee for hearing on 22nd February, 2007. The petitioner accordingly remained present along with an advocate. The advocate for the petitioner by his application of 22nd February,. 2007 moved an application to cross-examine the Research Officer attached to the committee in so far as the remarks made on the inquiry report. The petitioner on the date of hearing reiterated his right to cross-examine the Research Officer. The respondent no.2 committee without considering the request, proceeded to hear the petitioner and closed the case of the petitioner on 22nd February, 2007 and thereafter passed the impugned order.

7. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner the learned counsel submits that considering the provisions of 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 the said Act), the committee has all the powers of a civil court conferred on it by section 9, including summoning, and attendance of any person and examining him on oath. Once the committee has placed reliance on the report to invalidate the caste claim the Research officer ought to have been made available for cross examination. The Research Officer it is submitted is an expert and evidence of an expert cannot be relied upon unless the party against whom the expert evidence is soug