JUGEMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:--This matter pertains to Jalgaon District. However both the parties have consented to retain this matter over here as per the list maintained by the office. Hence taken up. 2. In October 1983 after enquiring into the application of petitioner for grant of caste certificate on the basis of his claim that he belongs to Gadi Lohar, the Scrutiny Committees rejected the same and the petitioner, therefore, carried an appeal before the Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. By his judgment dated 27th December, 1983 (Ex. B) the Commissioner, Nashik Division allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Scrutiny Committee and granted the declaration that the petitioner belongs to Gadi Lohar community which has been notified as Nomadic Tribe by the Government of Maharashtra. 3. On the basis of the caste certificate as belonging to Nomadic Tribe, the petitioner secured admission for M.B.B.S. Course. Eventually, he completed the said course. 4. Subsequent to the above events, cousins of the petitioner by name Sangita Hajare and Kavita Hajare were also seeking similar caste certificates as belonging to Gadi Lohar community and made applications which were forwarded to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee rejected their claims on the basis that the documents tendered by them appeared to be doubtful and their claim as belonging to Gadi Lohar community did not appear to be genuine. 5. Sangita Hajare preferred an appeal to the Commissioner. The appeal of Sangita came to be rejected. It is in these circumstances that these two cousin sisters preferred Writ Petitions Nos. 261 of 1987 and 887 of 1987. Both these petitioner were taken up for hearing together and were disposed of on 7th August, 1987 by a speaking judgment. The Division Bench (S.C. Pratap and H.H. Kantharia, JJ.) considered the claim f the two sisters on the basis of the documents which were tendered and relied upon by them and concluded that the claim of the two sisters was baseless. They could not be treated as Gadi Lohar. According to the Division Bench, they were rightly categorised as belonging to Hindu Lohar. 6. One of the documents relied upon by the cousin sisters was the caste certificate granted in favour of the present petitioner Sachindra in the year 1983. They could not be treated as Gadi Lohar. According to the Division Bench, they were rightly categorised as belonging to Hindu Lohar. 6. One of the documents relied upon by the cousin sisters was the caste certificate granted in favour of the present petitioner Sachindra in the year 1983. In paragraph 13 the learned Judges have observed that the "the caste certificates of Anil and Sachindra (petitioner) would be of no avail to Kavita and Sangita. Had there been some independent satisfactory evidence that Kavita and Sangita belong to Gadi Lohar community, their claims would have stood strengthened and fortified by the caste certificates issued in favour of Anil and Sachindra". It is further observed at the conclusion of paragraph 13 as follows : "We strongly feel that the caste certificates obtained by Anil and Sachindra are also bogus. They, however, have been lucky in escaping detection and in getting admissions to medical course." After, their writ petitions were dismissed, the same was brought to the notice of the State Government and the Deputy Secretary, State of Maharashtra in Social Welfare, Cultural Activities, Sports and Tourism Department issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 18th January, 1988 (Ex. D). The said show-cause notice is based on the decision of the Division Bench in the petitions filed by Sangita and Kavita and the observations made against the grant of caste certificate in favour of the present petitioner Sachindra as bogus. Solely on the basis of the said observations the said show-cause notice has been issued. 7. On 4th February, 1988, the petitioner submitted his written reply by way of explanation (Ex. E) inter alia disputing the right of the Government to reopen the issue and further supported the grant of certificate to him as belonging to Gadi Lohar community. After considering the explanation, however, the Deputy Secretary by his order dated 25th May, 1988 at Ex. F rejected his explanation and also passed an order setting aside the judgment of the Commissioner, Nashik Division dated 27th December , 1983 and thereby confirmed the order of the Scrutiny Committee rejecting the grant of caste certificate as Gadi Lohar to the petitioner. It is against this order that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by this writ petition. 8. Shri Kankaria, the learned Counsel appears for the petitioner and Shri Kerkar, the Asstt. Government Pleader represents the State. It is against this order that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by this writ petition. 8. Shri Kankaria, the learned Counsel appears for the petitioner and Shri Kerkar, the Asstt. Government Pleader represents the State. At the outset, we must say that the State of Maharashtra in the Department of Social Welfare, Cultural Activities, Sports and Tourism was not justified in issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner merely on the basis of some observations of the Division Bench in another writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the judgment the Court had very categorically observed that "each case which involves an issue or question of fact, must turn on the facts, evidence and circumstances of that case. Lack of materials and evidence in one case may not be there in another case. Just as an unfavourable caste decision in one matter cannot be itself affect and pre-empt a favourable order in the matter of another relation if otherwise justified, so also a favourable caste order in one case cannot be itself induce and influence a similar order in a subsequent case may be of a relation." 9. It is thus clear that even the Division Bench dealing with the writ petitions of Sangita and Kavita were strictly basing their decision on the basis of the evidence available in there cases and the caste certificate of the present petitioner was not placed before them for purposes of scrutiny or analysis. In fact, in our opinion, the observations reproduced above in paragraph 13 were not called for. At any rate, the same had no basis on which to say whether the certificates granted in favour of petitioner Sanchindra and his brother Anil were bogus or otherwise. The Government authority while issuing the show-cause notice (Ex. D) ought to have considered the judgment as a whole before taking such a drastic action. 10. In the show-cause notice we do not find the basis on which the said notice has been issued to the petitioner. If merely on the basis of some obiter observations in the judgment, caste certificates duly approved by the Appellate Authority i.e. the commissioner are to be reopened, it would create havoc and may cause great hardship to persons holding valid caste certificates for several years. 11. In the impugned order (Ex. If merely on the basis of some obiter observations in the judgment, caste certificates duly approved by the Appellate Authority i.e. the commissioner are to be reopened, it would create havoc and may cause great hardship to persons holding valid caste certificates for several years. 11. In the impugned order (Ex. F) at the very end the Secretary has referred to some Resolution of the Government in the Social Welfare, Cultural Activities, Sports and Tourism Department bearing No. CBC-1684/592/(1999)BCW-5 dated 16-10-1985. This is supposed to be the basis of the power to revoke the certificates. The learned Government Pleader, however, was unable to produce the same at the time of hearing. 12. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that in the impugned order (Ex. F) the Government has relied upon the reasoning as stated in the case of Sangita and Kavita in the Division Bench judgment instead of appreciating the documentary evidence which was tendered before it. The said reply was accompanied by 11 documents as averred in paragraph 6 of the petition. They include the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik, copy of the caste certificate in favour of the petitioner, copy of the petitioner's both extract of 1965 showing his caste as Gadi Lohar, copy of the primary school leaving certificates, copy of the college leaving certificate from Pratap College, Amalner, copy of the birth extract of petitioner's cousin brother of 1962 showing his caste as Gadi Lohar, copy of petitioner's brother's caste certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Amalner in 1977, copy of the birth extract of petitioner's brother of the year 1963 also showing his caste as Gadi Lohar, school leaving certificate of petitioner's brother, copy of the certificate issued by the President, Gadi Lohar Welfare Committee, Nehrunagar, Barmer, Rajasthan and copy of the letter received from the Gadi Lohar, Punarvas Co-operative Housing Society, Chitodgad from its President to the father of the petitioner. 13. A look at these documents which are tendered before us would show that some of the documents were in existence from 1962, 1963, 1965, 1977 etc., which would be long before the grant of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner which was by the decision of the Commissioner, Nashik Division in December, 1983. 13. A look at these documents which are tendered before us would show that some of the documents were in existence from 1962, 1963, 1965, 1977 etc., which would be long before the grant of caste certificate in favour of the petitioner which was by the decision of the Commissioner, Nashik Division in December, 1983. Even a cursory look at these documents would satisfy that not only the petitioner in his childhood was registered as Gadi Lohar, but his brother was also registered accordingly in their birth certificates. Besides this, two material documents are emanating from the Gadi Lohar Welfare Committee of Barmer, Rajasthan and the Purnarvas Co-operative Housing Society, Chitodgad which would also show that the petitioner's father was recognised as a member of Gadi Lohar community by their Presidents. These documents cannot be faulted as fraudulent or manipulated inasmuch as these documents had come into existence several years before the need for a certificate by the petitioner arose. 14. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench in the writ petitions filed by Sangita and Kavita shows that in their case they had relied only on two documents as referred to in para 9(a) and 9(b). One is the caste certificate issued in favour of Sangita showing her caste as Gadi Lohar and the other is the birth extract from Sahada Nagar Palika showing her caste as Gadi Lohar. The rest of the paragraph from paragraph 9(c) onwards refer to other circumstances which weighed with the learned Judges but which were not produced as evidence by way of documents. Such being the case, it must be observed that on the basis of those two certificates which were discarded by the Division Bench, they could not be persuaded to accept the caste certificate of the present petitioner as being in support of the claim of those petitioners. It is in that view of the matter that the claim of Sangita and Kavita was negatived by the Division Bench and in the light of observations of that Division Bench in para 12 quoted above, it is clear that the said judgment was based on the evidence available in that case alone and grant of certificate to the petitioner would not be of avail to those petitioners. 15. 15. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the present petition and the voluminous record which was tendered by petitioner in support of his claim as belonging to Gadi Lohar caste, we find that the impugned order Ex. F by the Government is totally erroneous and illegal particularly because the same is based basically on the observations made in the nature of obiter in the earlier judgment. 16. In addition to this we are strengthened in our view by the fact that in paragraph 7 of the petition the petitioner has categorically stated that his father was invited in the year 1955 to attend the All India Conference of Gadi Lohar community at Chitodgadh in Rajasthan and has also tendered photographs thereof along with V.I.Ps. of national importance and other dignitaries. There is no rebuttal or challenge on behalf of the other side. There is no reason why this strong piece of evidence of the year 1955 should not be accepted. In the light of these circumstances, we quash and set aside the order impugned in the petition, allow the petition and rule made absolute. Costs to the petitioner quantified at Rs. 1,000/-. Rule made absolute. *****