Vrushali V. Joshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 17.11.2018 passed by the District Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner of "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe.

3. The petitioner would contend that while invalidating the claim, the Committee has just brushed aside the validities granted to the paternal side relatives i.e. three real brothers of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for caste certificate to the Competent Authority and the certificate issued on 13.06.1973 by Tahsildar who was then Competent Authority. Said certificate was forwarded for verification to the Committee in the year 2005 and it was invalidated on 21.11.2013. It was invalidated by observing that Tahsildar, Khamgaon, who has issued the certificate had no territorial jurisdiction. Said invalidation was challenged in Writ Petition No. 269/2014. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 14.11.2014, confirmed the order of Scrutiny Committee and further liberty was granted to the petitioner to apply for the caste certificate from the Competent Authority and direction was given to the Competent Authority to decide the claim in accordance with the law within further two months.

4. The petitioner has placed on record the validity certificate granted to his real brother validating the caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate dated 22.12.1981 in favour of Vijay Chintaman Bawane. The validity certificate of Dilip Chintaman Bawane dated 30.08.1995 and Gajendra Chintaman Bawane dated 30.08.1995. Along with these validity claims, the petitioner also submitted various other documents showing "Koli Mahadeo" entry and the certificates. The petitioner would further submits that on 21.09.2018, the Scrutiny Committee forwarded the Police Vigilance Cell report thereby collecting the irrelevant entries of one Chaitya alias Gulab Laxman Hirya Bawane, wherein Dhivar has been mentioned on 28.03.1942 and has also obtained some entries of Koli. The Vigilance Cell report was replied by the petitioner in detail along with supporting documents.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in 2007 the Government of Maharashtra has issued a Resolution dated 22.08.2007 thereby framing a policy that if the validity has been granted to the paternal side relative by the Competent Authority, then in that case while issuing validity certificate to other paternal relatives no other evidence be collected and other certificates may not be demanded. The said Government Resolution is in force and in consonance with said Resolution, the Rules, 2012 framed under the Act No. XXIII of 2001 have been amended to that effect. Hence, prayed to issue the validity certificate to the petitioner.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader opposed the petition and supported the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we have given due consideration to the rival submissions. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner's three real brothers have been held to belong to "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe. That adjudication has attained the finality. The claim of the petitioner's three brothers has been upheld by the Scrutiny Committee. It is thus clear that prior to coming into force of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance of Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act of 2000'), the claim of the petitioner's brother was examined in accordance with the procedure then prevailing and it was held that they had proved that they belonged to "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe. The effect of such adjudication prior to coming into force of the Act of 2000 has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amruta Vijay More Vs. State of Maharashtra [Civil Appeal No. 7230/2011 @ SLP (C) No.(s) 29364/2010]. The facts of that case indicate that the claim of Amruta's blood relative was examined by the Screening Committee prior to coming into force of the Act of 2000. On the question whether there could be re-consideration of the tribe claim after the Act of 2000 came into force, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Screening Committee as it then existed had found that various blood relatives of Amruta had been held to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe and therefore the subsequent decision of the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of an affinity test would not stand scrutiny.

7. In the case of Madhuri Nitin Jadhav Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others [2014 (3) Mh.L.J. 900] the Division Bench of this Court has held that caste certificates and/or orders validating the caste/tribe claim based upon the procedure that was prevailing prior to the Act of 2000 would be required to be accepted unless a case of fraud and/or misrepresentation was made out. Such certificates could not be overlooked in subsequent proceedings. In absence of a case of fraud and/or misrepresentation the Scrutiny Committee could not be permitted to overlook and/or deny the same because such certificates were obtained prior to the Act of 2000 and/or without due enquiry and/or passing the affinity test.

8. From the aforesaid, it is thus clear that if there has been an adjudication prior to coming into force of the Act of 2000, the same would have to be taken into consideration and given its due weightage notwithstanding the fact that such adjudication was not preceded by an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. This is for the reason that it is only under the Act of 2000 that an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell has been Statutorily contemplated. In absence of any allegations of fraud and/or misrepresentation during the course of such prior adjudication or while obtaining the earlier certificate, the validity certificate cannot be overlooked merely on the ground that there has been no enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. As stated above, such enquiry by the Vigilance Cell was not contemplated prior to the Act of 2000 coming into force. It is only with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241] decided on 02.09.1994 that holding of enquiry by the Vigilance Cell was first directed.

In the present case, as adjudication of the tribe claim of the petitioner's blood relatives by the Scrutiny Committee is much prior to the decision in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) and the Act of 2000 coming into force it cannot be said that while undertaking such adjudication there was no enquiry by the Vigilance Cell as such enquiry was never contemplated at that point of time.

9. In that view of the matter, since it is undisputed that the petitioner's three real brothers have been issued validity certificates by holding that they belong to 'Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe prior to enactment of the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee was not justified in going behind grant of such validity certificate and re-opening the proceedings. There are no allegations of fraud and/or misrepresentation having been practiced during the course of the earlier adjudication. The petitioner therefore would be entitled to claim that he too belongs to "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe and the ratio of the decision in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra) would be applicable in the present case.

10. Hence, for what has been observed hereinabove, the following order is passed:-

"I] The Writ Petition is allowed.

II] The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 17.11.2018 is hereby set aside.

III] It is declared that the petitioner belongs to "Koli Mahadeo" Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue validity certificate in favour of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the receipt of copy of this judgment.

IV] Consequently, all retiral benefits of the petitioner shall be released in terms of the aforesaid adjudication."

11. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.