The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the committee were erroneous, and the impugned order invalidating the tribe claim needed to be quashed and set aside, emphasizing the limitations of the affinity test and the impact of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976.

JUDGMENT

Shrikant D. Kulkarni, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, heard finally at admission stage.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 / Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Division, Nandurbar (hereinafter referred to as the "committee") thereby invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe, the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Heard Mr. S.C. Yeramwar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K. Tambe, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / State and Mr. N.N. Desale, Advocate for Respondent No.3 / Zilla Parishad, Dhule.

4. Perused the impugned order passed by the committee dated 29.09.2015 and order dated 01.01.2020 pertaining to the petitioner's daughter namely Maheshwari and other papers annexed with the petition.

5. Mr. Yermawar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner's tribe claim was referred to the committee for validation through the department along with documentary evidence dated 24.06.2013. The committee has conducted the vigilance. The petitioner has filed reply to the show cause notice issued by the committee. The personal hearing was conducted before the committee on 26.11.2014 and the matter was closed for order. At the relevant time, the tribe claim of the petitioner's daughter namely Maheshwari was also pending before the committee. The committee has called upon her for personal hearing on 08.08.2018. It is observed by the committee that the tribe claim of Maheshwari's father along with her brother and real aunt are also pending before the committee.

6. Mr. Yeramwar further submitted that the committee has invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner's daughter Maheshwari by order dated 10.08.2018. Maheshwari had preferred writ petition No.9262 of 2019. The Special Bench constituted at Principal seat, Bombay vide order dated 23.08.2019 quashed and set aside the impugned order passed by the committee and remanded the matter to the committee for fresh decision. He submitted that, the committee, by following due procedure of law validated the tribe claim of the petitioner's daughter Maheshwari Thakur and issued the tribe validity certificate. According to Mr. Yeramwar, the documents of pre-independence era right from the year 1918 were produced by the petitioner. The petitioners tribe claim for validation was pending for long time. On 07.01.2020, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act. After receiving the documents from the committee, the petitioner came to know that his tribe claim was invalidated by the committee long back on 29.09.2015, however, on the said Rojnama, the signature of Vice-Chairman was not available. The impugned order was never served to the petitioner. Mr. Yeramwar submitted that the impugned order passed by the committee is bad in law and needs to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of the tribe validity certificate issued in favour of his daughter Maheshwari.

7. Mr. Tambe, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / State per contra supported the order passed by the committee. He submitted that the committee has taken into consideration old documents produced by the petitioner. The committee has also considered the vigilance report and the report of the Research officer and other documents and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove his tribe claim as "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. Mr. Tambe submitted that the findings recorded by the committee are well reasoned. The decision taken by the committee is not defective in the eye of law. It is not a fit case to interfere with the decision of the committee.

8. Mr. Desale, learned counsel for respondent No.3 / Zilla Parishad, Dhule supported the stand taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 /