JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a case wherein a caste claim of the petitioner has been refused under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, 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 read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (in short referred to as "Act, 2000 & Rules 2003").

3. The petitioner belongs to a distressed family headed by a single mother. The petitioner's mother got married to one Prashant Sakharam Ambre, the father of the petitioner on 8th August, 1996. Petitioner was born during the wedlock on 21st July, 1997. Soon thereafter there were serious differences between the father and the mother of the petitioner and they culminated into dissolution of marriage in the year 2003. Well before that, the petitioner had left her matrimonial house and she had started residing in her parental house. In the year 2003, there was a Court's order whereby custody of the petitioner, a small girl of about 6 years then, was granted to the mother. Since then, the petitioner has been looked after and raised and educated by her mother in the background provided by her parental community. The petitioner had no concern with her biological father for all these years. Practically, the petitioner inculcated the values, practices, customs and traditions of the community to which her mother belonged. The mother of the petitioner, is a tribal woman belonging to "Halba" Schedule Tribes, and she married Prashant, a non-tribal, belonging to "Nhavi" caste. But, this marriage was soon dissolved and apparently it had no cultural impact whatsoever on the petitioner in the sense that it did not result in the petitioner getting values, customs and practices of the community to which her father belonged. Rather, the petitioner was raised in an atmosphere dominated by the customs and traditions of the community to which her mother belonged.

4. It was, therefore, natural for the petitioner to start claiming the social status which was professed by her mother and that was of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. In due course, an occasion arose for the petitioner to declare to the world her social status as that of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe and with that view in mind, the petitioner made an application under Section 3 of the Act 2000 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Respondent no.2) for issuance of the caste certificate disclosing her status to be as that of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents submitted before an authority like respondent no.2 were from her mother's side. Unfortunately, respondent no.2, in spite of such a background as narrated above, for which sufficient documentary evidence, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was also made available for consideration, continued to harp upon the documentary evidence from the paternal side. Of course, if we consider the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules 2003, apparently nothing wrong in such an approach could be found. But when we look at the case from a different prospective, which is provided to us in ample measure by the background of a distressed family led by single mother of the petitioner, we would be convinced that this case requires different approach. In our such view, we are supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors of Civil Appeal No. 654 of 2012. The respondent no.2, however, minutely dissected the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra) and relying upon those observations, which he found to be useful for reaching a conclusion in h