The main legal point established in the judgment is the acceptance of tribe claims based on blood relations, the relevance of pre-Independence documents, the removal of area restrictions, and the cautious approach to the affinity test.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Ahuja, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petitions are heard finally.

2. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are challenging the decision dated 04.09.2019 of Respondent No. 2- Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar invalidating the tribe claims of the petitioners belonging to "Thakur Scheduled Tribe" community.

3. Since both the Petitions, one i.e Writ Petition No. 11349 of 2019 by the father viz. Shri Anil Soma Thakur and the other Writ Petition No, 11344 of 2019 by his son viz. Nikhil Anil Thakur involve challenge to the same common order having similar underlying facts, we are disposing of both these petitions by this order and judgment.

4. The Petitioners, residents of Jalgaon District, claim that they belong to 'Thakur Scheduled Tribe' community included in the list of Scheduled Tribes at Sr. No.44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of Act No. 108 of 1976. Petitioners had been issued Caste Certificates by the concerned Competent Authority(s) certifying that the Petitioners belong to Thakur - Scheduled Tribe. The said caste Certificates were referred to the respective Scrutiny Committees for verification. At that time in the case of the father it was the Nashik Scrutiny Committee and in the case of the son it was the Nandurbar Committee. The respective Scrutiny Committees referred the matters to the respective Vigilance Cells, who submitted their respective reports after which Show Cause Notices were issued along with copies of the respective vigilance reports to the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed their replies to the same. Thereafter, the Nashik Committee transferred the file of the father to the Nadurbar Committee, which led to a re-inquiry in the case of the son. It is submitted that the Nandurbar Committee obtained contra evidence of the persons not in blood relation of the father. The said Vigilance Cell Report pursuant to re-inquiry was served on the son vide Show Cause Notice to which reply was filed. Thereafter the Scrutiny Committee after granting personal hearing to the Petitioners has passed the impugned order dated 04.09.2019 invalidating the tribe claims of the Petitioners to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. These facts are not disputed by the Respondents.

5. The Petitioners are by these petitions seeking directions of this Court quashing and setting aside of the impugned decision and order of the Committee dated 4.9.2019 invalidating the Tribe Claim of the Petitioners and a declaration that Petitioners belong to 'Thakur Scheduled Tribe'.

6. It is submitted that while the tribe claims of the petitioners were pending with the Scrutiny Committee and a Certificate of caste validity was required by the son viz. Nikhil, Writ Petition No. 8386 of 2014 as well as Writ Petition No. 9788 of 2017 seeking appropriate directions to the respondents were filed, wherein this Court passed the following orders dated 05.11.2014 and 07.12.2017 respectively.

Order dated 05.11.2014 in WP No. 8386 of 2014

"1. Though respondents 3 and 4 are served, none appears for respondents no.3 and 4.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, validation proceeding in respect of Tribe claim of the petitioner is pending. However, the respondents are seeking to take action against the petitioner for non submission of validity Certificate.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2- Committee states that because of the large pendency of the matters and vacancy of Vice Chairman, it would take some time. To get the proceeding decided within stipulated period is not in the hands of litigant. Considering above, we pass following order.

O R D E R

The respondent No.2 shall decide the validation proceeding in respect of the Tribe Claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within ONE YEAR. The petitioner shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the said proceeding.

Respondents No.3 and 4 shall not take a