JUDGMENT :

R.N. Laddha, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. This petition is directed against the decision and order dated 3rd October 2022 passed by the Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Petitioner’s tribe certificate belonging to Koli Mahadev – Scheduled Tribe. Further, she sought directions to the scrutiny committee to issue a certificate of validity in her favour. Being a student, the petitioner was required to submit tribe validity certificate for prosecuting higher studies. Before the Respondent Committee the petitioner produced a number of documents that consisted of pre-constitutional period documents, the certificates of validity issued to her blood relatives and copies of several orders passed in various writ petitions whereby the concerned scrutiny committee was directed to give validity certificates to her blood relatives from paternal side.

4. The Respondent Committee forwarded the documents to the Vigilance Cell for verification. The Vigilance Cell conducted the investigation and submitted its report. A copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell was given to the Petitioner. An opportunity of hearing was also granted. The Respondent Committee having assessed the documents, by an order dated 3rd October 2022, rejected the claim of the Petitioner’s tribe claim.

5. Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that several documents were relied upon and though all of them are genuine, the Affinity Test has been resorted to. It is submitted that the Respondent Committee ought to have considered the documentary evidence and should have placed greater reliance on pre-independence documents. He submits that Affinity Test is not the litmus test for establishing the link of the Petitioner with a Scheduled Tribe. In support of his broad proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Anand v/s. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and ors., AIR 2012 SC 314.

6. According to the learned Counsel it is mandatory to issue caste validity certificate to the claimant if the validity is already issued to his blood relatives. To lend support to this submission reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Apoorva, daughter of Vinay Nichale v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & ors., 2010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. It has been submitted that the tribe validity certificate produced on records of blood relatives have been overlooked. Further it has been submitted that the Respondent Committee should have considered the documentary evidence and placed greater reliance on preindependence documents. The learned Counsel relied on (i) Pundalik Gursiddhappa Umbarje, WP No.7846 of 2003 order dt. 8.12.2003 in WP No.7846/2003, (ii) Naina Girish Umbarje and Harish Girish Umbarje, Order dt.5.9.2001 by Hon’ble Vth Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Solapur. (iii) Kanchan Chidanand Umbarje, WP N o.448/1993 order dt. 1.3.1996 ,(iv) Sharad Shrikrishna Umbarje vs. Secretary, Tribal Development Department, WP No. 2368/1993 order dt. 1.3.1996; (v) Kashinath Sangappa Umbarje, WP No.2368/1993 order dt.1.3.1996, (vi) Mahesh Bhimashankar Umbarje, WP No.2388/1994 order dt.29.7.1994, (vii) Arya Vaibhav Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra, WP No.3735/2022 order dt. 31.3.2022, (viii) Nilappa Mangeshwar Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra, WP No.6561/2008 order dt. 5-08-2009, (ix) Bhalchandra Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra, WP No.6182/2010 order dt. 29.10.2010 and (x) Kum. Madhavi Shashikant Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra, WP No.9072/2018 order dt.13.10.2018; (xi) Abhishek Mahindra Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online Bombay 2858, in support of his contentions. He submits that all the Petitioners in the petitions mentioned above are blood relatives of the present Petitioner