JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. Heard both sides. 2. Without going into the merits of the contentions in detailed with regard to all the documents and the issues raised in the writ petition, I am of the view that the writ petition should succeed on the sole ground that when the petitioner had relied on the documents at Sr. Nos. 30 and 31, as pertaining to his great-great-grand-father, which relate back to 1913 and 1916, it was inappropriate for the Scrutiny Committee to lightly brush aside the said documents on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the said documents are in respect of his blood relative especially when the petitioner had sustantiated his case by giving geneology to indicate that said Dhondba was related to him. Admittedly, no finding has been recorded that the said documents, or for that matter the geneology relied upon by the petitioner, are not genuine. Moreover, no concrete evidence is placed on record to rebut the petitioner's claim that said Dhondba, whose certificates were relied, was related to him. In other words, there is absolutely no basis indicated in the impugned order which persuaded the Committee to conclude that said Dhondba is not related to the petitioner. In the case reported in (Gayatri Laxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1996(3) Bom.C.R. 687 : 1996(3) S.C.C. 685 : 1996(3) SCALE page 53 the Apex Court has observed that it is not enough for the Committee to discard a document, but if an authentic document is on record, the Committee is under an obligation to place on record the evidence which would rebut the said document. Such approach, from the reasons assigned in the impugned order, cannot be said to have been resorted to. In the circumstances, this writ petition should succeed on this limited ground and the Caste Scrutiny Committee can be directed to examine the matter afresh with regard to documents at Sr. Nos. 30 and 31 and record a clear finding. Needless to mention that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall give full opportunity to the petitioner before proceeding with the matter. It is clarified that no other question has been examined for the time being and the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all other questions before this Court, if an occasion arises. 3. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds as aforesaid. It is clarified that no other question has been examined for the time being and the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all other questions before this Court, if an occasion arises. 3. In the circumstances, this writ petition succeeds as aforesaid. Rule is made absolute. Impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 31-7-2000 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh enquiry. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the matter within a period of three weeks from the receipt of this order. The petitioner to appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 5th September, 2000 for enabling the Caste Scrutiny Committee to fix next date of hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further prays that if the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to atleast for a period of 15 days to enable the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. The said prayer is just and is, therefore, granted. In other words, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, if adverse to the petitioner, shall not be given effect to for a period of 15 days from the date of its communication to the petitioner. 4. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the admission process is under way and the petitioner has been invited to appear for interview on 19th August, 2000 and he apprehends that the petitioner would be deprived of availing the facility as belonging to the Schedule Tribe. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that the apprehension is totally misplaced as it is well settled that till the caste certificate is set aside, candidate cannot be robbed of his benefit available to him as belonging to the Schedule Tribe. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has been invited to appear for interview and has already been treated as in the category of Schedule Tribe and would be continued to be treated as such until final decisions reached by the caste Scrutiny Committee. Writ petition succeed. -----