S. M. MODAK, J.

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned AGP for State.

2. By this Petition, Petitioners are challenging the order dated 3rd July 2018 passed by the Respondent No.2 – Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli (hereinafter be referred to as 'the Scrutiny Committee' for the sake of convenience), thereby invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioners as 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe. Yadav VG

3. Even though there is a validity certificate issued by the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee in favour of Sudhakar Nanaji Sawsakade i.e. father of both the Petitioners, the said Committee invalidated the caste certificates issued in favour of the Petitioners. The impugned order was passed on 3rd July 2018.

4. The law on this issue is already settled. If there are earlier validities, the Scrutiny Committee is supposed to issue fresh validities to the near relative. In spite of this interpretation of law, there is a strange thing that Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee refused to issue validity certificate to closest blood relative of Sudhakar Nanaji Sawsakade.

5. We have gone through the relevant findings from the impugned order. The Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee gave a reasoning that validity certificate to father of the Petitioners – Sudhakar Sawsakade was granted without conducting a police verification/enquiry. We think this is a half hearted attempt on behalf of the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee no where had given a finding that the documents relied upon by the father of the Petitioners – Yadav VG Sudhakar Sawsakade and the documents relied upon by the present Petitioners are forged documents.

6. This issue was answered by this Court in the matter of Apoorva Vinay Nichale V/s Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others, reported in 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 401. It has been observed in Paragraph No.9 as follows.

“9. There is, however, no doubt as observed by us earlier that if a committee is of the view that the earlier certificate is obtained by fraud it would not be bound to follow the earlier caste validity certificate and is entitled to refuse the caste claim and also in addition initiate proceedings for cancellation of the earlier order.”

The Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee, on one hand declined to validate the tribe certificate of the Petitioners, but on the other hand, has not taken any steps for invalidating the already granted certificate to the father of the Petitioners. This has created an anomalous situation as father of the Petitioners is having validity certificate being a member of 'Mana' Scheduled Tribe, at the same time, his daughters – Petitioners are being Yadav VG denied of the same benefit. On the sole ground, the impugned decision needs to be setaside. By no stretch of interpretation it can be said that validity certificate obtained without vigilance inquiry is by playing fraud.

7. In addition to this, we have perused the documents relied upon by the Petitioners. They are also referred by the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee. We do agree that the caste certificates are not the relevant documents. We are not considering the fresh documents, post-constitutional documents, but, we find one pre-independence document of the year 194647. The name of great-great-grandfather namely, Paika Antu Sawsakade is mentioned therein. It is in respect of entering the name of Shivram Sawsakade as one of the son of Paika Antu Sawsakade. This Shivram is great grandfather of Petitioners. There is a reference of 'Mana' in the remark column. The Vigilance Committee opines that it does not conclusively prove 'Mana' as a Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee has endorsed that view.

8. It is pertinent to note that in those days there was no benefit extended to the members of either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Yadav VG So one cannot expect to specifically write 'Mana' as a Scheduled Tribe during that period. The said issue was conclus