M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Heard Mr. D. Pangam for the Petitioner, Ms. A. Kamat for Respondent No.1 and Mr. A. Prabhudessai for Respondent No.2.

2. Rule. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. At the outset, Ms. A. Kamat submitted that this Petition pertains to the assignment of the learned Single Judge, since the impugned order has been made by a quasi-judicial Authority. In response, Mr. Pangam, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner points out that the impugned order is not an order made under a statute referred to in Chapter XVII, Rule 18 of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, as applicable to the State of Goa. He submits that even at the Principal Seat at Mumbai, such matters are taken up for consideration before the Division Bench.

4. In the State of Goa, there is no statute, in terms of which the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been constituted for verification of the caste certificates. This exercise is undertaken in terms of the ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and anr. vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors ., (1994) 6 SCC 241. At the principal s