The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's requirement to take a prima facie view at the time of issuance of tribe/caste certificate, followed by scrutiny by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee.

JUDGMENT

Ujjal Bhuyan, J. - Heard Mr Sagar Phatale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr Kutti, learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties finally by consent.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 03-08-2017, passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Bhokar, District Nanded, declining to issue Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner as belonging to "Mannerwarlu" community, which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. Further challenge made by the petitioner is to the order dated 23-03-2018, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad i.e. respondent no.2 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer i.e. respondent no.1. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to issue Scheduled Tribe certificate to the petitioner as belonging to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe community.

4. Case of the petitioner is that he belongs to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe community. In this connection, the concerned Talathi as well as Sarpanch and Gramsevak had issued certificates certifying that petitioner belongs to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe community. When the petitioner approached respondent no.1 being the competent authority under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 for issuance of Scheduled Tribe certificate, respondent no.1 directed the concerned Circle Officer to make an inquiry. It is stated that the said Circle Officer had conducted enquiry and thereafter submitted report recommending that the petitioner, indeed, belongs to "Mannerwarlu" Scheduled Tribe community and should, therefore, be issued the related certificate. Similar recommendation was also made by the Executive Magistrate of Bhokar.

5. Notwithstanding the same, respondent no.1 by order dated 03-08- 2017 rejected the application of the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the above rejection, petitioner preferred appeal before the Scrutiny Committee - respondent no.2 which is the appellate authority constituted under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. Respondent no.2, by order dated 23-03-2018, rejected the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the decision of respondent no.1.

7. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner, namely, Balaji Datta Chukewad has been issued Scheduled Tribe certificate by the Executive Magistrate, Bhokar on 29-11-1990, who was then the competent authority to issue such certificate. Identical tribe certificate was issued to Chukewad Vinod Maroti, cousin brother of the petitioner from paternal side, which was subsequently validated by the Scheduled Tribe Certificates Scrutiny Committee. These documents were placed before respondent no.1. In addition, a genealogy statement was filed before the respondents indicating the relationship of the petitioner with father and cousin brother from the paternal side. These documents were not considered by the respondents by taking a mechanical approach holding that these are post independence documents.

9. Learned A.G.P. submits that in such matters, ordinarily neither records are produced nor reply affidavits are filed. Matters are decided on the basis of pleadings and documents. He fairly submits that considering the case made out by the petitioner, Court may pass an appropriate order.

10. We have heard learned Counsel for th