JUDGMENT :

Sunil B. Shukre, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

3. This is the second time that the petitioner is required to approach this Court questioning the legality and correctness of the order of invalidation of the caste certificate passed by the respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee at Thane. Previously, the respondent no.2 had invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner and that order was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 10568 of 2014. It was then found by this Court that the Scrutiny Committee refused to accord the evidentiary value to the validity certificate granted to Kailash Devidas Tayade, cousin of the petitioner from the paternal side, that it deserved in law.

4. It may be stated here that caste or tribe validity certificate granted to any person is a conclusive proof of the social status of that person and it confirms the genuineness of the social status, whether caste or tribe, claimed by that person. A document which stands as a conclusive proof for one person would also stand as a conclusive proof of the social status of another person, if such other person is a paternal relative of the first person possessing the validity certificate except in a case where the validation of caste or tribe certificate is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation of facts or suppression of facts.

5. There is a rationale in this approach. In most parts of India, the families are organized on patriarchal basis and follow a patrilineal mode of succession. In such families, members take same caste or belong to same tribe as that of their ancestor traced patrilineally. In such a family, therefore, the relatives cannot be the members of different caste or tribes and must be considered to be in law as having same caste or tribe or community to which their common ancestor from paternal side belonged. It, therefore, appeals to reason that the validity certificate granted to any relative from the paternal side would equally constitute a conclusive proof for the social status of another member of the family, immediate or extended, from the paternal side except in circumstances noted above. This is the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 54, which has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and Ors. 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401.

6. Considering the law so well established in the field, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 10568 of 2014 filed by the petitioner, vide its order dated 20.12.2016 not only quashed and set aside the impugned order of invalidation of respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee but also directed the Scrutiny Committee to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner keeping in view the validity certificate granted to Kailash Tayade, paternal cousin of the petitioner and also keeping in view the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra).

7. So, it was expected that the Scrutiny Committee while exercising its discretion in the matter, would give due consideration to the directions given by this Court in Writ Petition No.10568 of 2014 in its order dated 20.12.2016. But on going through the impugned order we feel disappointed. The Scrutiny Committee in a stereotypical order has once again rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner for the same reason which it gave while rejecting the claim of the petitioner in the earlier round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, the Scrutiny Committee had reasoned that validity certificate granted to Kailash Tayade could not be accepted because some of the documents showed that the other relatives belonged to Hindu Other Backward community or Koli and Suryavanshi Koli. It further held that the Scrutiny Committee (Scrutiny Committee at Nashik) was required t