R.M. Borde, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2. Petitioner No.1 is a registered Association claiming to be involved in social activities for development of the society and more particularly, for tribal community. According to petitioners, they are dedicated social workers engaged in the welfare activities and working for protecting constitutional rights of the tribal communities. Petitioner No.1 has been authorised to present instant petition. Petitioner No.2 claims to be a social worker and is elected councillor of Municipal Corporation, Nagpur.

3. Petitioners are raising challenge to the validity certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.6 by the Scrutiny Committee validating caste/tribe certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate certifying that Respondent No.6 belongs to "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe.

4. Respondent No.6, at the relevant time, was Cabinet Minister for Tribal Development Department in the Council of Ministers of the Maharashtra State. Respondent No.6 represented Akole Constituency in Ahmednagar district as a Member of Legislative Assembly since 2000. However, it is informed that at present, he is neither an elected representative nor he is holding any Ministerial position. Respondent No.6 is in receipt of caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sangamner Division, District Ahmednagar, dated 09.08.1999. The caste certificate issued to Respondent No.6 records his caste/tribe as "Hindu Mahadeo Koli". After election of Respondent No.6 as a Member of Legislative Assembly in the year 2001, caste/tribe certificate, issued in his favour, came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny Committee, in observance of the procedure prescribed under law, has validated the tribe certificate issued to Respondent No.6 and was pleased to issue validity certificate on 22.06.2001, declaring Respondent No.6 as belonging to "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe.

5. Petitioners contend that Respondent No.6, in fact, does not belong to a tribal community, apart from the fact that there is no tribe recognised as "Mahadeo Koli" Scheduled Tribe, recorded in the Presidential Order issued in the year 1950, as amended in 1976. Entry No.29, in the Ist Schedule, so far as it relates to Maharashtra Part IX, records name of the tribe as "Koli Mahadev" and not as "Mahadeo Koli".

6. It is the contention of petitioners that the tribe certificate issued to Respondent No.6 by the competent authority mentioning the tribe as "Hindu Mahadeo Koli", which has been validated by the Scrutiny Committee, shall have to be branded as an illegal document since there is no entry mentioned in the Constitutional Order describing the tribe as "Hindu Mahadeo Koli". Petitioners, as such, pray to quash the caste/tribe certificate as well as validity certificate issued to Respondent No.6.

7. In an affidavit opposing the Public Interest Litigation presented by Respondent No.6, a preliminary objection is raised as regards maintainability of Public Interest Litigation at the instance of petitioners. It is contended that petitioners do not have any locus standi to raise objection to the validity certificate issued to Respondent No.6 by the Scrutiny Committee in observance of the procedure prescribed in that regard. The validity certificate has been issued in the year 2001 and belated challenge is raised to in so called public interest after about fourteen years. There is absolutely no public interest involved in raising challenge to the certificate issued to an individual after more than a decade. According to Respondent No.6, only a person, who has suffered or suffers from legal injury, can challenge the act, action or order in the Court of law. There is no judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, as such, t