JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nagpur, dated 27-3-1999 invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order mainly on four grounds. The first submission is that although documents at Annexure 'H' and Annexure 'L' to this petition which relate back to the year 1913 and 1925 respectively, were produced before, the Committee, however, the Committee has not even adverted to the said documents. According to him, the said documents were decisive of the caste claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Halbi'-Scheduled Tribe. The second point urged is that, the Committee has discarded documents produced before it at Serial No. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11, solely on the ground that the said documents were issued after the issuance of the Schedule Tribe Order, 1950. According to him, the documents could not be discarded on this reasoning, but it was incumbent upon the Committee to examine the genuineness and authenticity of those documents and record a clear finding that the said documents cannot support the caste claim of the petitioner. This submission is made in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in 1996(3) Bom.C.R. 687 (Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra others)1. The third contention raised is that there is nothing on record, especially in the order or even the submissions filed before this Court, to indicate that the procedure as envisaged by the Apex Court in Direction 5 of the decision reported in (Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development)2, 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690, Case No. 1, has been duly complied with. The challenge is that, the person associated with the Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, for investigation, was not competent, in that he was not Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer, who alone could have been associated in view of the decision of the Apex Court reported in (Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane)3, 1998(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)479, Case No. 2. Commr., Tribal Development, Thane)3, 1998(1) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)479, Case No. 2. It is submitted that even the other requirements under direction 5 of the Madhuri Patils's case No. 1 of personal verification and examination and the relevant records as well as interviewing the candidates and his parents has not been complied with. Consequently, it is submitted that due to non compliance of mandatory procedure, the order issued by the Scrutiny Committee is vitiated and deserves to be set aside. The last point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has discarded document at Serial No. 1 on the ground that the caste certificate of the student cannot be treated as conclusive proof. According to the learned Counsel, the said certificate was issued by the competent authority based on the contemporaneous record produced by the petitioner before the said authority including his school leaving certificate, transfer certificate of his father, transfer certificate of his grandfather, copy of service book of his father, Municipal Council Birth Certificate, Ward Sabhasad Certificate and affidavit. It is submitted that it was, therefore, inappropriate to discard the said document on the basis of the reasoning given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 replied that in so far as the documents being Annexure 'H' and Annexure 'L' to the writ petition are concerned, they were not produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, and as such, the question of considering the same does not arise. It is further contended that since the said documents were not produced before the Committee, it is not open for the petitioner to rely on the said documents in writ jurisdiction in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. In response to the second point urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee fairly concedes that it was not proper for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to discard documents at Serial Nos. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11 solely on the basis that the said documents were issued after 1950 and, therefore, should not be looked into. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11 solely on the basis that the said documents were issued after 1950 and, therefore, should not be looked into. With regard to the Caste Certificate at Annexuer 'D' relied upon by the petitioner, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee that the said Caste Certificate has been issued by the Executive Magistrate who is not competent authority as held by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patils's case. 6. With regard to the ground of procedural non compliance, the learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee fairly submits that the impugned order, no doubt, does not specifically point out that the procedure as directed by the Apex Court has been complied with or that the person associated in the investigation along with the Vigilance Cell was qualified as per the requirement stipulated by the Apex Court, however, she submits that the impugned order refers to the Government Resolution dated 14-7-1997 which has restated the law declared by the Apex Court regarding the procedure to be followed. According to her, it could be safely presumed that the said procedure has been complied with. 7. It is distressing to observe that large number of writ petitions are filed in this Court assailing the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee mainly on the ground of non-compliance of procedural requirements provided for by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case. This is one such case where the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not complied with the procedural requirement as directed by the Apex Court. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, I find that the written submissions filed before this Court on behalf of the respondents do not specifically refute the grounds taken in the writ petition that there was utter non-compliance of the procedural requirements as pointed out above. Neither the impugned order nor the submissions filed before this Court indicate that the requirement in Direction 5 of the decision in Madhuri Patil's case No. 1 has been duly complied with. There is no statement on record to indicate that the person associated with the Vigilance Cell was qualified and fulfilled the necessary qualification stipulated by the Apex Court in the decision of Madhuri Patil's case No. 2. There is no statement on record to indicate that the person associated with the Vigilance Cell was qualified and fulfilled the necessary qualification stipulated by the Apex Court in the decision of Madhuri Patil's case No. 2. Besides that, there is no statement on record that the investigation and enquiry undertaken was fully in compliance with the procedure prescribed under Direction 5 of the decision in Madhuri Patil's case No. 1. The writ petition should therefore, succeed for this technical reason. 9. As mentioned above, it has been observed that in most of the cases which have come to this Court, the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee are required to be set aside for non-compliance of procedural requirements. The impugned order has been passed as recently in March 1999; and by this time the procedure to be followed by the Committee before rendering its decision has been well settled by the Apex Court in more than one case. Notwithstanding this position, it appears that the Committee has not taken any efforts to improve upon this aspect so that its orders are not interfered with by the High Court on such technical grounds. The inevitable effect is that such orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee are set aside by this Court; and matters are remanded for fresh enquiry, entailing into loss of public exchequer and the priceless judicial time. 10. Be that as it may. The fact remains that it is not possible to hold that the procedural requirements as required under Direction 5 of the decision in Madhuri Patil's case No. 1 as well as the direction in Madhuri Patil's case No. 2 have been complied with in the present case. This is a sufficient reason to set aside the impugned order, as the entire enquiry is vitiated for want of procedural non-compliance, inasmuch as it would have the inevitable effect of deciding the caste claim of the petitioner without affording fair opportunity to the petitioner. 11. As already pointed out above that the learned Counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee has fairly conceded that it was inappropriate for the Committee to discard substantial number of documents, namely, at Serial Nos. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11, placed before the Committee on the sole ground that the same were issued after the issuance of Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. 2 to 7 and 9 to 11, placed before the Committee on the sole ground that the same were issued after the issuance of Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. Since there is no independent adjudication about the genuineness and authenticity of the said documents, the impugned order cannot be sustained as it would be clearly in breach of the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in Gayatri Laxmi's case. Even on that count, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the Committee for reconsideration on merits afresh. 12. As presently advised, it is not necessary for this Court to examine any other contention that would arise in this case, at this stage; since, the impugned order is set aside for the above reasons and matter remitted back to the Committee for de-novo enquiry, it would be open to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the Committee, which would be adjudicated by the Committee in accordance with law. 13. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute on the aforesaid terms. The impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 23-3-1999 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for de-novo enquiry and investigation and for taking final decision in the matter in accordance with law. 14. Needless to mention that the Committee shall afford fair opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his stand regarding his caste claim. The petitioner shall appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 26-9-2000 to enable the Caste Scrutiny Committee to fix the date of hearing of the proceedings. The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall make necessary enquiry and follow the necessary procedure and finally decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the receipt of this order. 15. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the results for the First Year B.E. examinations have been withheld by the respondent No. 4 due to invalidation of his caste claim. The respondent No. 4 is directed to declare the results of the petitioner, which shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the final decision taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall, however, be permitted to pursue his further studies in the meantime. The respondent No. 4 is directed to declare the results of the petitioner, which shall, however, be subject to the outcome of the final decision taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall, however, be permitted to pursue his further studies in the meantime. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not claim any equities in the event the Caste Scrutiny Committee, after re-hearing invalidates his caste claim. In the event the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidates the caste claim of the petitioner, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall not be given effect to for a period of two weeks from the date of its service on the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to take recourse to the proceedings available in law. -----