Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner has challenged order dated 6.2.2014 passed by Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Scrutiny Committee), thereby invalidating the caste certificate of the Petitioner who belongs to “Koli Mahadeo – Scheduled Tribe” mainly on the ground that the Tribe – Koli Mahadeo is not found in Dhule District as per Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. On 27.11.1995 the Competent Appellate Authority has granted caste certificate to the Petitioner and to his brother. Through college, his case for validity of certificate was forwarded on 27.11.2007 along with documents. The Petitioner got admission under reserved category in the year 2009-10. The Petitioner is studying in 3rd and final year of Degree course in Catering and Hotel Management. During this period, the Vigilance Cell recorded statement of father of the Petitioner on 21.08.2008, apart from deposition towards traditional occupation, social cultural traits, dialect etc, pointed out the certificate of validity to himself and to his brother. It is also pointed out other close family members having such valid caste certificate. The Petitioner, therefore, reiterated again and again that his father, two blood uncles and his real elder brother have been granted certificate of validity by Respondent No.2Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee of Nasik, therefore, prayed for the similar issuance of certificate of validity. Respondent No.2Scrutiny Committee, however, by the impugned order, invalidated the caste certificate of the Petitioner by overlooking the judgment cited of Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as, High Court.

3. The apex Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra & ors (2013) 4 SCC 465) referring to earlier Supreme Court judgments has recorded as under, as there is no case of any fraud and/or misrepresentation by the Petitioner while claiming the caste certificate and/or also validation of it.

“39. The correctness of the said judgment in Madhuri Patil (1994) 6 SCC 241 was doubted, and the matter was referred to and decided by a larger Bench of this Court in Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 333), wherein, while deciding the various issues involved, including the competence of this Court to legislate in this regard, it was held as under : [Dayaram case, SCC pp. 353-54, paras 35-36]

35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating authority like a court or tribunal, but an administrative body which verifies the facts, investigates into a specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not …..

36. …... If there were to be a legislation governing or regulating grant of caste certificates, and if caste certificates are issued after due and proper inquiry, such caste certificates will not call for verification by the Scrutiny Committees. Madhuri Patil.”

4. In Writ Petition No.3110-2002–Ravi Janardhan Chalmela v. State of Maharashtra & ors, a Division Bench of this Court of which Anoop V. Mohta, J. was also a member, decided on 21.08.2014, in a situation where other family members already got validation to the caste certificate has observed as under:

“16 This Court, apart from other Judgments, in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 & Ors. (2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401), after considering even the earlier Judgments and such submissions and as no case of fraud and/or misrepresentation was made out, granted the caste validity certificate based upon the relatives certificate. In Abhishek Deepak Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 8884 of 2009), this Court, on 23 October 2013, also directed to issue caste validity certificate in the similar circumstances. Another recent Judgment of this Court is Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014(3) Mh.L.J. 900), in respect of the cert