(A.S. Oka, J.)

Considering the fact that the issue arising in these petitions is identical, we had put the parties to the notice that the petitions will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

2. For the sake of convenience, we are making a reference to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No.2016 of 2012. This is a case where the challenge is to the order dated 2nd December, 2011 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. The petitioner applied for caste verification on the basis of the caste certificate dated 29th September, 2006, issued by the Deputy Collector and the District Supply Officer, Parbhani. The certificate issued was to the effect that the petitioner belongs to Thakur Caste which is recognised as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950. In the impugned order, the Caste Scrutiny Committee made a reference to the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Certificate) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The Caste Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the competent authority who issued caste certificate to the petitioner had no territorial jurisdiction to issue caste certificate and therefore, the certificate has been issued without jurisdiction. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, held the certificate to be invalid and directed that the certificate should be cancelled and confiscated accordingly. The Caste Scrutiny Committee granted liberty to the petitioner to obtain a fresh caste certificate in the manner prescribed by said Rules and submit it to the Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee made it clear that cancellation of the certificate is without affecting the merit of his claim. In other writ petitions, there are similar orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee wherein findings have been recorded that the caste certificates on the basis of which caste validity was sought were issued by the competent authorities having no territorial jurisdiction to issue the same.

3. The detailed submissions have been made in these petitions and in particular in Writ Petition No.2016 of 2012 by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have heard submissions the learned A.G.P and the learned Counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committees. The submissions have been made by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner by inviting our attention to the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified 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 submissions have been made on the procedure laid down by the said Rules and in particular Rule 5 which deals with grant of Scheduled Tribe Certificate to migrated persons. Very elaborate submissions have been made before us as regards the meaning of a migrant within the State and the jurisdiction conferred on various competent authorities within meaning of the said Act to issue caste certificate to migrants. In addition to these submissions, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2016 of 2012 has made submissions on the basis of provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the said Act. He has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Vasant Pandurang Narwade @ Narvde vs. Subhash [2001 (10) JT 125]. His submission is that without going to the question whether the competent authority had territorial jurisdiction to issue caste certificate, it was the duty of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to make adjudication and to record findings on the caste claim of the petitioner.

4. In short, the submissions have been made about the interpretation of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 5 of the said Rules with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the competent authorities to i