A.S. Oka, J.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP for the Respondents. Taken up forthwith for final disposal.

2. The Petitioner applied for grant of a caste certificate. The Petitioner claims that he belongs to a caste Thakur which is notified as a Scheduled Tribe. An Application was made by the Petitioner under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, 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 (for short “the said Act”). The Application made by the Petitioner was rejected by the third Respondent. Being third Respondent, an Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner in accordance with Section 5(1) of the said Act. The Appeal was allowed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and a direction was issued to the third Respondent to issue a caste certificate to the Petitioner. It appears that the third Respondent instead of issuing a caste certificate rejected the application made by the Petitioner. A Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner for challenging the said order of the third Respondent. In the said Writ Petition, the Petitioner was relegated to a remedy of appeal under Section 5(1) of the said Act. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioner accordingly was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, a Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner. In the Writ Petition, an order of remand was passed. On 27th January 2010, the Appeal was again dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order, a Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner. In the Writ Petition, an order was passed remanding the Appeal to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. By the impugned judgment and order dated 6th May 2013, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has dismissed the Appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of the challenge to the order dated 6th May 2013 submitted that the scope of inquiry for issuing a caste certificate under Section 4(1) of the said Act is very limited. If there is a prima facie evidence produced by the Petitioner of his caste claim, the Competent Authority is under an obligation to issue a caste certificate. He submitted that considering the limited scope of the inquiry while issuing a caste certificate under Section 4(1) of the said Act, even the scope of adjudication in an appeal against the order rejecting an application for grant of such caste certificate is limited. He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Shri Kumar Balkrishna Nayaran Bedekar and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.3801 of 2012 decided on 23rd September 2013). He also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench in the case of Niraj Kamlakar More & Others v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Others (2012(6) Bom.C.R. 221).

4. The learned AGP invited our attention to the provisions of the said Act and the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (for short “the said Rules”). He invited our attention to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 8 of the said Rules which confers the power on the Appellate Authority to call for further documents. He relied upon a decision of the Full Bench in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No.5028 of 2006 decided on 7th May 2009). He submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee being the Appellate Authority has all the powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person, requiring the discovery and production of documents, receiving evidence on affidavit, requisitioning any public record and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or for the production of documents. He, therefore, urged that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was duly authorised to call for the vigilance cell