JUDGMENT - NAIK A.B., J.:---The minor petitioner (through his father) by this petition is challenging the order dated 15-2-1996 passed by the Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Maharashtra State, Nashik (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee'). The Committee, by the impugned order has invalidated the tribe claim of Atish Mansaram Wade, whereby he claimed that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has applied to the Committee for verification of his tribe claim as he intended to prosecute further studies and claim the benefit and privilege of reservation as provided under the Constitution of India in favour of the persons belonging to Scheduled Tribes. The Executive Magistrate, Aurangabad, had issued the certificate on 17th of July, 1993, certifying that the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner, in support of his claim, has submitted 24 documents before the Committee. The Committee then scrutinised the documents produced by the petitioner. The petitioner was asked by the Committee to appear before it along with his father, however, the petitioner's father did not appear before the Committee but petitioner and his brother appeared before the Committee and were heard in person. At the time of hearing, the petitioner and his brother were asked to furnish information regarding sociocultural traits and characteristics of the tribe which they claim. Accordingly, the brother of the petitioner has submitted the information. The Committee took into consideration the information given by the petitioner's brother and found that the characteristics and the traits were not associated with the people belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The Committee found that the documents which were produced by the petitioner are of recent origin and that too, after 1976. The Committee, therefore, came to the conclusion that the petitioner could not establish the tribe claim and, accordingly, the Committee, by the impugned order, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and cancelled the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate. 2. The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 22nd of March, 1996. The petition was circulated for admission on 31st August, 1998, which was dismissed in default. Later on, the said order was called back and the petition came to be restored to file. 2. The petitioner filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 22nd of March, 1996. The petition was circulated for admission on 31st August, 1998, which was dismissed in default. Later on, the said order was called back and the petition came to be restored to file. Thereafter, the petition appeared for motion hearing five times before different Benches, ultimately, on 31st of August, 1998, this Court issued Rule Nisi and gave liberty to the petitioner to file additional affidavit by way of additional evidence. Though this Court has given liberty to the petitioner, he has not filed any additional affidavit till this date. 3. Smt. K.R. Rajput, instructed by Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Advocates, appeared for the petitioner. She submitted that the Committee is not constituted in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in (Kum. Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others)1, 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690. She contended that, the Apex Court has directed the State Government to reconstitute the Committee which should consist of (1) Additional or Joint Secretary or any Officer, higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (2) Director of Tribal Welfare Department, and (3) Research Officer. She contended that the Apex Court declared the law in Madhuri Patil's case on 2nd September, 1994, and as the Committee, which has invalidated the claim of the petitioner, was not constituted in terms of the order of the Apex Court, hence the said Committee has no jurisdiction or authority to decide the claim of the petitioner. She submitted that the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Police Vigilance Cell as directed by the Apex Court in Clause 5' of Kum. Madhuri Patil's case (supra), and the Committee has decided the claim of the petitioner in absence of report from the Vigilance Cell. She further submitted that the judgment and order of the Committee, being perverse, and contrary to the evidence on record, as the documents which were furnished by the petitioner before the Committee were sufficient to establish the claim of the petitioner but the Committee has observed otherwise. The learned Advocate submitted that the Committee has only considered the characteristics and traits of the tribe and, in doing so, the Committee has ignored the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. The learned Advocate submitted that the Committee has only considered the characteristics and traits of the tribe and, in doing so, the Committee has ignored the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner. She submitted that the Committee has rejected the documents on flimsy grounds and, rejection of those documents, as such, the order is vitiated. She submitted that the petitioner has produced the school leaving certificate of his mother wherein caste Koli Mahadeo has been mentioned. She submitted that the marriage of petitioner's mother with his father is not an inter caste marriage. The learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the Committee, by taking too technical view of the matter, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. She further submitted that the State has not demonstrated or not established that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe "Koli Mahadeo". As the State has not produced any document to disprove or reject the claim of the petitioner, the Committee should have accepted the evidence produced by the petitioner. She vehemently submitted that, for non-forwarding the claim of the petitioner for investigation to the Vigilance Cell, the entire order has become invalid and which runs contrary to the law declared by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case (supra). She relied on the judgment of this Court in (Rambhau Diwakar Parkhedkar v. State of Maharashtra others)2, 2003(4) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)264 and submitted that, as the enquiry by the Committee is not as per the guidelines issued by the Apex Court, which are mandatory in character, and, because of non-following it, the entire order is vitiated. She, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the Committee is required to be set aside and the matter is to be referred back to the Committee which is now constituted in terms of the directions of the Apex Court. 4. Shri S.M. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Committee, supported the order passed by the Committee. Shri S.M. Kulkarni contended that the Committee was justified in observing that the certificate, which is issued to the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate, was issued in casual manner. Similarly, the other certificates, which are produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim, before the Committee, were also issued by the Committee and, as such, no reliance can be placed on the certificates. He submitted that the Committee was justified in rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner ignoring/discarding those documents. Similarly, the other certificates, which are produced by the petitioner to substantiate his claim, before the Committee, were also issued by the Committee and, as such, no reliance can be placed on the certificates. He submitted that the Committee was justified in rejecting the tribe claim of the petitioner ignoring/discarding those documents. He submitted that the certificate that is issued, either in favour of the petitioner or in favour of his relatives, cannot be taken to be valid unless, it is demonstrated by the petitioner that those are issued by the Executive Magistrate by following the proper procedure prescribed by the State Government from time to time. He submitted that all the certificates which are produced by the petitioner on record are issued in a casual manner in defiance of the guidelines issued by the Government and, therefore, he submitted that those certificates which are referred to by the Committee in its order at para 3.2 cannot be accepted as valid. He submitted that the affidavit which is filed before the Committee cannot be accepted as gospel truth unless the petitioner produces the basic documents and that too, prior to the issuance of the Presidential Order of 1950 or 1976 to establish his tribe claim. Shri Kulkarni, therefore, submitted that when the original certificate itself is issued in violation of the guidelines, it is for the petitioner to demonstrate at least before this Court that the Magistrate, who has issued the certificate, has followed the procedure prescribed. He submitted that the petitioner has not demonstrated before this Court this aspect. He submitted that the burden of proof to establish the tribe claim lies heavily on the petitioner as the petitioner is seeking the constitutional privileges meant for depressed and Backward Class of citizens recognised as per Article 342 of the Constitution of India and that burden never shifts on the State or its authority to disprove the claim. The claim must be established solely by the person who claims social status and he has to prove it beyond any doubt. Learned Advocate submitted that after the judgment of the Apex Court, in Madhuri Patil's case, the Government of Maharashtra, on receipt of the instructions from the Government of India, vide the communication dated 25th September, 1995, it has passed a Resolution on 26th October, 1995, and reconstituted the Committees functioning at Pune, Nashik and Nagpur. Learned Advocate submitted that after the judgment of the Apex Court, in Madhuri Patil's case, the Government of Maharashtra, on receipt of the instructions from the Government of India, vide the communication dated 25th September, 1995, it has passed a Resolution on 26th October, 1995, and reconstituted the Committees functioning at Pune, Nashik and Nagpur. This fact was brought to the notice of the Apex Court when the State Government, on 12th September, 1996, submitted an application for recalling the order passed in Kum. Madhuri Patil's case. The Committee, which decided the claim of the petitioner, was the "Nashik Committee" and which was constituted in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court. He submitted that the entire directions given by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case were not immediately implemented by the Government of Maharashtra at once but it was done in stages. Reconstitution of the Committee was done vide Government Resolution dated 26th of October, 1995 and for creation of Vigilance Cell, which will be manned by the police personnel, which is under Home Department, the Home Department has to create posts for that purpose, and for that a sanction from Finance Department was required. After completion of all administrative and legal formalities, the Government of Maharashtra passed a Resolution on 15th March, 1996, and established the Vigilance Cell. As the case of the petitioner was decided by the Committee on 15th Feb., 1996, i.e. prior to the creation of Vigilance Cell, there was no occasion for the Committee to refer the case of the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell. Therefore, he submitted that the grievance of the petitioner, that the Committee was not constituted as per the direction of the Apex Court or the case of the petitioner was not referred to the Vigilance Cell has no substance at all. Shri Kulkarni further submitted that the petitioner has to establish his claim by producing the basic documents mentioning the tribe of the petitioner, prior to the issuance of the Presidential Order of 1950. Shri Kulkarni submitted that the petitioner hails from Aurangabad District, which was part and parcel of erstwhile Hyderabad State. He submitted that the first Presidential Order was issued in the year 1950, when this part was not a part of Maharashtra, in that order Koli Mahadeo was not recorded as Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order relating to Hyderabad State. Shri Kulkarni submitted that the petitioner hails from Aurangabad District, which was part and parcel of erstwhile Hyderabad State. He submitted that the first Presidential Order was issued in the year 1950, when this part was not a part of Maharashtra, in that order Koli Mahadeo was not recorded as Scheduled Tribe in the Presidential Order relating to Hyderabad State. He brought to our notice the entries in the First Presidential Order pertaining to Hyderabad State. He, therefore, submitted that, after the States Reorganisation in the year 1956, this part became the part of Bombay State by virtue of the provisions of States Reorganization Act, the entries made in the First Presidential Order of 1950, stood amended and carried forward without any addition and or deletion thereto in Bombay State. He brought to our notice that, after 1956, till 1960, the same situation continued. In 1960, i.e. Bombay Reorganization Act came to be passed by the Parliament and then Bombay State was reorganised and it is bifurcated into Gujarat and Maharashtra, the old entries then existed in Presidential Order of 1950 by virtue of section 27 of the Act, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribe) Order, 1950, stands amended as directed in the Eight Schedule. Those entries continued till 1976. In 1976 i.e. the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment) Act, by virtue of section 4, the Scheduled Tribes Order came to be amended. Part X relates to Maharashtra where the entry of Koli Mahadeo is made for the entire State of Maharashtra and only after 1976 several certificates were issued by the Executive Magistrate and, therefore, he submitted that, in order to establish the claim, the petitioner must produce authenticated independent documents prior to 1950 or 1976 to show that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel submitted that as no authentic old documents were available, the Committee has resorted to another mode to find out the claim of the petitioner, by applying the method to Judge the sociocultural traits, characteristics, affinity test, etc. He submitted that the members of the Committee were experts in the field and they are aware of the sociocultural traits and the characteristics of the Scheduled Tribe called "Mahadeo Koli". The Committee found that the brother of the petitioner, who appeared before the Committee, did not establish the sociocultural traits and characteristics of Koli Mahadeo. He submitted that the members of the Committee were experts in the field and they are aware of the sociocultural traits and the characteristics of the Scheduled Tribe called "Mahadeo Koli". The Committee found that the brother of the petitioner, who appeared before the Committee, did not establish the sociocultural traits and characteristics of Koli Mahadeo. He, therefore, submitted that the method, adopted by the Committee was recognised method/procedure to determine the caste or tribe claim of a particular candidate. Therefore, he submitted that the Committee, which was entrusted to determine the tribe claim, has analyzed the evidence produced on record. The Committee, for the reasons stated in the order, has discarded the evidence produced by the petitioner and, applying the established and accepted method of determining the case on the basis of sociocultural traits and characteristics, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe and recorded a finding to that effect and that finding being a finding of fact, this Court, in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not interfere in the said order. He submitted that the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the petitioner regarding criticism levelled on the findings recorded by the Committee that, the same are perverse, is not justified. He submitted that the Committee has properly analyzed the documentary evidence and has chosen not to accept the document which, according to the Committee, was of recent origin and discarded the same. Shri Kulkarni, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on (i) Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development (supra), and (ii) (Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri)3, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 1506, (iii) (Ganesh Gulabrao Suroshe v. State of Maharashtra others)4, 1997(4) S.C.C. 340 and the judgment of this Court in the case of (iv) (Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar v. State of Maharashtra)5, 2003(1) Bom.C.R. (N.B.)689. 5. In reply to these contentions, Smt. Rajput, learned Advocate, contended that the law declared by the Apex Court is applicable immediately on its pronouncement and the Government cannot defer implementation of the law declared. She submitted that, for non-establishing the Vigilance Cell, by the Government, it has prejudicially affected the right of the petitioner as the petitioner was not having the old documents. She submitted that, for non-establishing the Vigilance Cell, by the Government, it has prejudicially affected the right of the petitioner as the petitioner was not having the old documents. If the Vigilance Cell was constituted, the Inspector incharge would have investigated the claim of the petitioner and, inaction on the part of the Government to comply the directions of the Apex Court, has certainly affected the petitioner's case. She, therefore, submitted that as the Vigilance Cell is now established, this Court may remand the matter and direct the Committee to forward the claim of the petitioner for investigation. 6. Before we go to the validity of the contentions which are raised by the petitioners and respondents, we will note whether the Executive Magistrate has followed procedure that is prescribed by the Government to issue caste certificates. This is necessitated for us because the learned Counsel Mr. Kulkarni has stated before us that, inspite of specific directions issued by the Government, the Magistrates empowered to issue certificates are issuing certificates in casual manner which in fact is noticed by the Committee. The grievance by the learned Advocate is valid, we have come across several cases where the Executive Magistrates, who were entrusted with the duty to issue caste certificate so that the real deserving persons of backward and depressed classes should get the benefit are not responding to their duty and in casual and routine manner are issuing certificates for mere asking. We noticed that the Executive Magistrates incharge were acting in casual manner and issuing certificates to several undeserving persons whereby the real beneficiaries were deprived of their constitutional rights and benefits of reservation meant for the real and deserving candidates are being taken away on account of the said certificate. Therefore, we venture to consider the submission of the learned Advocate for the respondent. We have noted that though the State of Maharashtra is a party respondent, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing in this matter, has played a role of silent spectator, not made any submission, nor any return is filed by the State. 7. The Government of Maharashtra, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department has passed a Resolution on 29th October, 1980, streamlining the procedure for issuance of caste certificate. 7. The Government of Maharashtra, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department has passed a Resolution on 29th October, 1980, streamlining the procedure for issuance of caste certificate. Under the Constitution of India, special facilities and protection has been given to Scheduled Tribes and in response to the constitutional mandate, the State Government is implementing various schemes for upliftment of the Scheduled Tribes and to bring them in the mainstream and on par with others by providing reservation in Government services, grant of free studentship, reservation in educational institutions, etc. The Government has received complaints that these benefits meant for Scheduled Tribes are largely being taken by the persons who do not belong to Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, the Government has decided to formulate a procedure. The preamble of the Resolution states that in preliminary check enquiries undertaken (i.e. prior to 1980) by the Director of Social Welfare, in respect of the caste certificates produced by the students for admission in professional colleges, it revealed that the percentage of applications, whose claims belonging to Scheduled Tribes were doubtful was as high as 60 per cent. This percentage was noticed only with regards to admission to professional colleges but the benefit of reservation available in all respects of appointment, granting of contract, contesting elections, etc. Then the percentage must be much more. The Apex Court has also taken a notice of this aspect and observed "a very numerous applications are received from spurious candidates claiming and projecting privileges exclusively provided to Scheduled Tribes candidates with the help of false certificates." This Court has also come across in numerous cases where it was noticed that the Executive Magistrate have issued false certificates. In some cases, this Court has directed enquiry in the matter of issuance of certificates by the Executive Magistrates and on report it revealed the alarming figure of false and bogus certificates being issued by the concerned Executive Magistrate. This was inspite of the Resolution passed by the Government and, therefore, the Government constituted a Committee consisting of Secretary to the Government, three members of the Legislative Assembly, Director of Tribal Research and Training, Institute of Deputy Director of Social Welfare and the Committee has gone into the various questions and it has recommended to modify the existing procedure to ensure that persons who do not belong to Scheduled Tribe, do not obtain the certificates as belonging to Scheduled Tribes. By the said Resolution, all Taluka/Tehsil Executive Magistrates, all sub-divisional Executive Magistrates and District Magistrates were empowered to issue certificates to Scheduled Tribes. The said Resolution also supplies instructions for issuance of the caste certificate. As per the instructions appended to the said Resolution, a duty is cast upon the authorities to verify minutely the contents of the application, supporting documents. After receipt of the application by the Competent Authority, it has to scrutinise the claim carefully in accordance with the list of check points which are referred in Annexure 1. Looking to the 23 clauses incorporated in Appendix A and looking to the certificate issued to the petitioner in this case, we are of the view that the certificate was issued by the concerned Magistrate in a casual, routine manner and, therefore, the Committee was justified in observing that the certificate of not only of the petitioner but those certificates produced on record pertaining to his relatives were also issued in a very casual and routine manner and, therefore, the Committee has not accepted the same. In our judgment, considering the Resolution dated 29th October, 1980, the observations of the Committee, therefore, are fully justified and we find no irregularity or perversity in the order on that count, as contended by the petitioner. We reject the said contention. 8. Coming to the contention regarding the Constitution of the Committee. The Committee which decided the claim of the petitioner consists of three members, namely, (1) Member Secretary, Scrutiny Committee and Additional Commissioner, (2) Member Secretary Scrutiny/and Deputy Director (Research) and (3) Chairman, Scrutiny Committee and Director. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that this Committee is not constituted in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in first Madhuri Patil's case, (supra). The Apex Court, in first Madhuri Patil's case, has laid down the procedure for issuance of social status certificate and their scrutiny and approval of the procedure. We will not burden our judgment by quoting all the clauses of the guidelines but it will be suffice to refer only two guidelines viz. guidelines Nos. 4 and 5: "For the issuance of a social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval, the procedure may be following: (1) (2) (3) 4. We will not burden our judgment by quoting all the clauses of the guidelines but it will be suffice to refer only two guidelines viz. guidelines Nos. 4 and 5: "For the issuance of a social status certificate, their scrutiny and their approval, the procedure may be following: (1) (2) (3) 4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the concerned department, (2) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (3) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the Tribes, Tribal Communities, parts of groups of Tribes or Tribal Communities. 5. Each Directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He also should examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged, in the proforma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, duty, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned Castes or Tribes or Tribal Communities etc. The law was so declared by the Apex Court on 2nd of September, 1994. The Government of Maharashtra then, by the Resolution dated 26th of October, 1995, reconstituted the Committee. by the concerned Castes or Tribes or Tribal Communities etc. The law was so declared by the Apex Court on 2nd of September, 1994. The Government of Maharashtra then, by the Resolution dated 26th of October, 1995, reconstituted the Committee. The said Resolution gives references to previous circulars viz. (1) Government Circular, Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism Department No. CBC-1680/19961/KA-5 dated 6th May, 1980 and corrigendum dated 3rd June, 1980, (2) Government Resolution, Tribal Development Department No. HTC/1684/2818/(291) KA/ dated 23rd of January, 1985, (3) Government Resolution, Tribal Development Department No. STC/1090/23942/186/KA/10/ dated 3rd of June, 1992. (4) Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, Demi Official Letter No. 12018/13/95/HCD/R.Cell dated 21st September, 1995. The Government of Maharashtra, taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil's case and the letter from the Government of India dated 25th September, 1995, reconstituted the Committee. According to the said Resolution, the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee consists of Chairman-Director, Tribal Training and Research Institute Pune, Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Nasik, is member and Deputy Director, Research, Nasik, is Member Secretary. The order passed by the Committee, in the present case, which consists of the persons mentioned in the Government Resolution which is reconstituted in terms of the Apex Court judgment and, therefore, we find no substance in the contention raised by the learned Advocate that the Committee is not constituted in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court. The said contention is devoid of any merits and hence rejected. In the Resolution dated 21st of October, 1995, there is a reference that, as per Clause 5 of the Apex Court judgment in Madhuri Patil's case, constitution of the Vigilance Cell is being undertaken by the Home Department. Accordingly, by a Government Resolution being No. HTC/1895/PK/182/Part II/KA 10, dated 15th of March, 1996, constituted the Vigilance Cell. In the preamble of the Resolution, reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court and also the Resolution dated 26th October, 1995. The Government Resolution says that to constitute three Vigilance Cells at three different Committees, at Pune, Nashik and Nagpur, new posts are to be created and, accordingly, the Government has sanctioned the posts and also, it has sanctioned the posts and expenditure of Rs. The Government Resolution says that to constitute three Vigilance Cells at three different Committees, at Pune, Nashik and Nagpur, new posts are to be created and, accordingly, the Government has sanctioned the posts and also, it has sanctioned the posts and expenditure of Rs. 22,20,000/- are earmarked for establishment of those Committees and, accordingly, the Vigilance Cell was constituted. For each Committee the Vigilance Staff was also sanctioned which consists of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Inspector of Police, Lower Grade Stenographer and Clerk, Typists and Driver. The Government, accordingly, has complied with the directions of the Apex Court and constituted the Vigilance Cell. As the case of the petitioner was disposed of on 16th February, 1996, and the Vigilance Cell was constituted thereafter. Therefore, we see no justification for the grievance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that for non-establishing the Vigilance Cell a prejudice is caused. It is to be noted that heavy burden lies on the petitioner to establish the claim because the petitioner is seeking to claim the constitutional benefits and, in our judgment, considering the finding recorded by the Committee, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish his tribe claim. The question of burden of proof in such cases is no more res integra in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of A.P. v. Laveti Giri (supra) relied upon by learned Advocate Shri Kulkarni. The Apex Court in Laveti Giri's case was dealing with a case which arose out of the Division Bench judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Apex Court, dealing with the appeal, at the outset has observed: "2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated January 16, 1984, made in Writ Appeal No. 1040 of 1983. This is a second case after (Kum. Madhuri Patil), A.I.R. 1994 S.C.W. 4116 case in which this Court noticed fraud upon the Constitution played by the plainman to wear the mask of false social status to corner the Constitutional benefits of reservation of admission into professional course under Article 15(4), an integral scheme of socioeconomic justice conferred on the disadvantage Scheduled Tribes. The Government of Andhra Pradesh stated in G.O. Ms. Nos. The Government of Andhra Pradesh stated in G.O. Ms. Nos. 245 dated June 30, 1977, and reiterated in G.O. No. 289 dated November 28, 1986 of the Social Welfare Department of the Andhra Pradesh Government, that it is notorious to secure false caste/community certificates that "a very numerous applications are received from spurious candidates claiming and projecting privileges exclusively provided to Scheduled Tribes candidates with the help of false certificates relying in not only dilution but also denial of benefits to Scheduled Tribes candidates. It would be thus an undeniable fact that, to secure false social status as a Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes, the plainman plays fraud on the Constitution to secure admission to the professional courses or appointment to a post or office under the State or its instrumentalities. The Division Bench by resorting to traditional treatment of a burning malady, has overlooked the fraud played on the Constitution by ineligible persons the constitution of benefits exclusively made available for deprived class of persons." Laveti Giri, who obtained a certificate of social status, was referred to the Director. The Director disallowed the claim. The order of Director was challenged by filing a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition upholding the order passed by the Director. The order passed by the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench and the Division Bench has reversed the order of the Single Judge. The order of the Division Bench was challenged before the Apex Court. One of the contention that was raised before the Apex Court dealt with the question of burden of proof and in that case the Division Bench of the High Court has expressed that State should rebut the documentary evidence on the touchstone of the Evidence Act. Overruling the view of the Division Bench judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court observed. "6. ... ... ... We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the Division Bench. Burden of proof of social status is always on the person who propounds it to seek constitutional socioeconomic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. (underline ours) The Apex Court in Laveti Girl's case, supra, has reaffirmed its view in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. The Apex Court then observed. Burden of proof of social status is always on the person who propounds it to seek constitutional socioeconomic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. (underline ours) The Apex Court in Laveti Girl's case, supra, has reaffirmed its view in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. The Apex Court then observed. "While reiterating the above guidelines to be workable principles, it is high time that the Government of India would have the matter examined in greater detail and bring about a uniform legislation with necessary guidelines and rules prescribing penal consequences on persons who flout the Constitution and corner the benefits reserved for the real tribals etc. etc. so that the menace of fabricating the false records and to gain unconstitutional advantages by plain/spurious persons could be prevented. Lest they would defeat the constitutional objective of rendering socioeconomic justice envisaged under Article 46 in the Preamble of the Constitution under Articles 14, 15, 16, 38 and 39." Considering the abovesaid observation of the Apex Court in Laveti Giri's case, we find that the burden lies on the petitioner to establish the claim. The burden will never shift on the Government or its authorities to disprove the claim put forth by the petitioner. A negative fact cannot be proved. A fact has to be proved positively and that too by the person who approaches the Committee seeking validity of caste/tribe claim in order to get the Constitutional privileges and reservation. Constitutional reservation must go to the real deserving persons. It cannot be extended to those claiming by wearing mask of Scheduled Tribe by obtaining the certificate from the Executive Magistrate. As we have endorsed the finding of the Committee, that the certificates are issued by the Executive Magistrates in casual manner, we cannot accept the submission of the learned Advocate that the Committee has not considered the documentary evidence in proper perspective. We have noticed that the Committee was alive to the observations made by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case, "that despite of cultural advancement the genetical traits pass from one generation to another. No one could escape or forget or get them over. The Tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or Tribal community and still being maintained and preserved. No one could escape or forget or get them over. The Tribal customs are peculiar to each tribe or Tribal community and still being maintained and preserved. In the present case, the Committee has interviewed the petitioner's brother who failed to establish the sociocultural traits and characteristics which are associated with the people belonging to the Schedule Tribe. As the Committee has rightly observed that the petitioner has not established the sociocultural traits and characteristics, as this was necessitated because there was no authenticated/basic documents produced by the petitioner. As we have noticed from the Presidential Order, the first order; the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 was published on 6th September, 1950, when this part of Maharashtra was part of Hyderabad State. Part IX of the said Order deals with Hyderabad State and throughout the Hyderabad State 9 entries are recorded as Scheduled Tribe and in nine entries, there is no reference to Koli Mahadeo. After this order, then comes the States Reorganization Act. The entries so made were brought forward in Bombay State as it existed in erstwhile Hyderabad State. There was no change in the entries, after States Reorganization so far as this part of Hyderabad State was concerned. Then, after Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, the same position continued. Schedule VIII of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, as per section 27, the Amendment of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, was substituted and Part VII-A enumerates the list of the Scheduled Tribes which reads thus : "Throughout the State except district of Buldhana, Akola, Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha, Nagpur, Bhandara, Chanda Aurangabad, Parbhani, Nanded, Bhir, Osmanabad and Rajura; and the list, Entry No. 12, deals with Koli Dhor, Tokre Koli, Kolcha or Kolgha. For Ahmednagar district only Koli Mahadeo or Dongar Koli is mentioned. Para 6 deals with districts of Aurangabad, Parbhani, Nanded, Rajura, Bhir and Osmanabad, which reads as: 1. Andh. 2. Bhil. 3. Chenchu or Chenchwar. 4. Gond (including Naikpod and Rajgond). 5. Hill Reddis, 6. Kolam (including Mannervarlu) 7. Koya (including Bhine Koya and Rajkoyal). 8. Pardhan. 9. Thoti. These entries were in the list from 1950 Order. Then came the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes orders (Amendment Act) Order, 1976 Part IX deals with the entries relating to Scheduled Tribes. Entry No. 29 deals with: 1. Koli. 2. Mahadeo. 3. Dongar Koli. Kolam (including Mannervarlu) 7. Koya (including Bhine Koya and Rajkoyal). 8. Pardhan. 9. Thoti. These entries were in the list from 1950 Order. Then came the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes orders (Amendment Act) Order, 1976 Part IX deals with the entries relating to Scheduled Tribes. Entry No. 29 deals with: 1. Koli. 2. Mahadeo. 3. Dongar Koli. The fact remains that till 1976, there is no entry of Koli Mahadeo Scheduled tribe in Marathwada region and only after 1976 Koli Mahadeo entry finds place for the entire State of Maharashtra. As we have noted from the preamble of the Resolution dt. 29th October, 1980, that there is increase of 60 per cent false applications being filed for securing the certificates, with this background, the certificate of the petitioner, obtained after 1976, is to be considered as the petitioner has no documentary proof of the period prior to 1976, to show that he belongs to Koli Mahadeo. As there were no documents prior to 1976, moreover no statutory presumption is attached to a Scheduled Caste/Tribe Certificate, that the facts therein are presumed to be true and such certificate cannot be accepted unless it is validated by the Committee, on being satisfied, on the basis of the relevant, cogent and authentic basis documentary evidence, as (1) the certificate is issued by the Executive Magistrate in casual and routine manner, (ii) no old documents were produced to show that the petitioner belongs to Koli Mahadeo, it is issued by the Executive Magistrate under the Executive direction, not under any statute, (iii) the certificate is issued against specific guidelines. In such situation, such certificate by itself does not confer any social status on the candidate unless it is verified by the Committee. No affidavit or any other parallel documents can give any credence, or weightage to such certificate, which is not verified, though it may relate to the close relative of the candidate. For these reasons, we do not accept the Tribe Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate and relied on by the petitioner in support of his case. The Committee was justified in not placing any reliance on those documents. Then only way left to the Committee was to Judge the characteristics and sociocultural traits of the tribe. The Committee, then, rightly proceeded to consider and to determine the tribe claim of the petitioner on the basis of the characteristics, etc. The Committee was justified in not placing any reliance on those documents. Then only way left to the Committee was to Judge the characteristics and sociocultural traits of the tribe. The Committee, then, rightly proceeded to consider and to determine the tribe claim of the petitioner on the basis of the characteristics, etc. (which petitioner failed to establish). In our view, therefore, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Committee. 9. Coming to the last contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, non-following the directions of the Apex Court regarding the constitution of the Vigilance Cell as we have noticed above, that till 15th March, 1996, the Vigilance Cell was not constituted and there was no question so far as case of the petitioner is concerned, to refer the case for investigation to vigilance cell as the tribe claim of the petitioner was decided by the Committee on 15th February, 1996. With this background, we have now to refer to two judgments of the learned Single Judges relied on by both the learned Advocates. 10. In Chhaya Binekar's case, supra, the learned Single Judge (R.S. Mohite, J.) has considered the role of Vigilance Cell while investigating the case of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge concluded by observing thus : "24. On an analysis of the subsequent and consequent Government Resolution passed by the State of Maharashtra, it is clear that the State of Maharashtra is in substantial compliance with the directions given by the Supreme Court e.g. : (a) The officers mentioned in direction No. 1 (with some small minor variation) have been empowered to issue Caste Certificate vide Government Resolution dated 7-3-1996; (b) The Scrutiny Committees were constituted as per direction No. 4 vide Government Resolution dated 26-10-1995 as updated by Government Resolution dated 14-7-1997 9-9-1999; (c) The posts for constitution of Vigilance Cell were sanctioned by promulgating Government Resolution dated 15-3-1996, complying with the former part of direction No. 5; (d) Direction Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were adopted in toto by virtue of para No. 5 of the Government Resolution dated 14-7-1997 (as amended by Corrigendum dated 23-7-1997) para 1(10) of the Government Resolution dated 11-6-1998 and para 4.2 of Government Resolution dated 9-9-1999 and have thus become mandatory. 25. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were adopted in toto by virtue of para No. 5 of the Government Resolution dated 14-7-1997 (as amended by Corrigendum dated 23-7-1997) para 1(10) of the Government Resolution dated 11-6-1998 and para 4.2 of Government Resolution dated 9-9-1999 and have thus become mandatory. 25. It appears that while giving effect to the directions of the Supreme Court, the State of Maharashtra has not given effect to the later portion of direction No. 5 which deals with the exact manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out by a Police Inspector and Vigilance Officer. The relevant words in direction No. 5 as given by the Apex Court were as under : "The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma, in particular of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the Castes or Tribes or Tribal Communities concerned etc. 26. In my view, since the State of Maharashtra has not specifically given effect to this part of direction No. 5 of the Supreme Court in its Government Resolutions, as reproduced hereinabove and in its wisdom, it has left the manner of its investigation to be carried out by the Vigilance Cell to be an open question. 26. In my view, since the State of Maharashtra has not specifically given effect to this part of direction No. 5 of the Supreme Court in its Government Resolutions, as reproduced hereinabove and in its wisdom, it has left the manner of its investigation to be carried out by the Vigilance Cell to be an open question. The manner of investigation need not be strictly in accordance with exact words of the Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove and that merely because the investigation is not carried out strictly in accordance with the wordings of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, that by itself would not vitiate the final order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which would be subsequently passed after giving full opportunity to a claimant the petitioner to put forward his case regarding his caste, to receive the copy of the Vigilance Cell Report with all annexures and even to point out the lacuna, if any, in the Vigilance Cell Report and its enclosures, before the Scrutiny Committee. This, however, would not mean that the Vigilance Cell has a licence to carry out an investigation which is slipshod, negligent or unfair. 27. I feel that the Vigilance Cell investigation and its report were clearly meant to be an internal aid for the benefit of the Scrutiny Committee and that direction No. 6 which has infact being given effect to by the State of Maharashtra as mentioned hereinabove, clearly and fully safeguards the interest of any candidate who appears before the Scrutiny Committee in a proceeding relating to the establishment of his caste. 28. To further elaborate the point, it will not be open to any person to contend that the ultimate order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vitiated merely because the investigation has not been carried out strictly in accordance with the relevant wording given in direction No. 5 as reproduced hereinabove. If there is any lacuna in the Vigilance Cell Report or in the documents enclosed therewith, it is always open to the concerned person to bring this to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee in the enquiry contemplated under the direction No. 6. The aforesaid wordings of the Supreme Court pertaining to the manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out cannot be read as if they are a part of a statute." 11. The aforesaid wordings of the Supreme Court pertaining to the manner in which the investigation is required to be carried out cannot be read as if they are a part of a statute." 11. This judgment of the learned Single Judge (R.S. Mohite, J.) fell for consideration before another Single Judge in Rambhau Diwakar Parkhedkar's case (supra). The learned Single Judge, (S.A. Bobde, J.) considering the observation in Chhaya's case, in para 28, proceeded to consider those observations and held viz. "14. I am of the view that the aforesaid observations cannot be considered as an authority for the proposition that the Police Vigilance Cell can ignore its duty of making an enquiry into peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, etc. as observed by the Apex Court. I understand that the aforesaid observations of brother Mohite, J., merely allow the Investigating Authority "free play in the joints" and allows latitute on the question as to how to conduct the investigation. It however, does not allow latitude as to what is required to be investigated. In the category of what is required to be investigated would fall as to the anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of the persons/family and existence of documents evidencing the caste of the concerned person. Indeed, in para 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Apex Court dealt with "how" an investigation should be conducted as well as "what" should be investigated. The latitude allowed in the judgment of brother Mohite, J., is only in respect of the former and not the latter. The judgment in Ku. Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar v. State of Maharashtra others, rendered by brother Mohite, J., in Writ Petition No. 1683/2000 is, therefore, of no help when an enquiry conducted by Police Vigilance Cell is devoid of essential and basic investigation necessary for procuring necessary material for verifying a person's caste." Both these judgments proceeded on the fact that there was a Vigilance Cell and claim was referred to it for investigation and both the learned Judges were considering the procedure that it adopted and investigation that is done by the Vigilance Cell. The case of the petitioner before us does not fall in any of the categories of the cases which are considered in two judgments of the learned Single Judges. The case of the petitioner before us does not fall in any of the categories of the cases which are considered in two judgments of the learned Single Judges. In this case, admittedly and indisputably, the claim of the petitioner was decided on 15th February, 1996, and the Vigilance Cell was constituted on 15th of March, 1996. Therefore, in our judgment that, merely because Vigilance Cell was not constituted, the judgment of the Committee cannot be vitiated on that ground, as the petitioner has to prove his case by positive evidence and the petitioner cannot insist that the State should disprove the claim of the petitioner as we have already referred to in the judgment of the Apex Court in Laveti Girl's case, supra, wherein the Apex Court has expressed that the Government should frame a legislation and considering the said observations of the Apex Court and also both the judgments of the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case, supra, we are of the view that merely because the Vigilance Cell was not constituted, by itself, is not fatal. The petitioner has not established his tribe claim and on that ground we cannot accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, for non-compliance of Clause 5 of the Order of the Apex Court, the entire action is vitiated and a prejudice is caused to him. As we have noticed from the observation made by the Apex Court in first Madhuri Patil's case that a procedure is prescribed and suggested by the Apex Court and the Apex Court has not further indicated that in case of non following the procedure the action of the Committee is vitiated. Therefore, we see no substance in the petition. We have noticed that now a comprehensive legislation has been passed by the State Legislature viz. Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Classes category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 which has prescribed stringent procedure, further providing the prosecution not only against the person obtaining the certificate but also against the officer. This was necessitated as executive instructions, or Resolutions, were not sufficient to keep check on issuance of Caste/Tribe Certificate. 12. In our view, all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner being devoid of merit, we reject the same. The petition is dismissed. This was necessitated as executive instructions, or Resolutions, were not sufficient to keep check on issuance of Caste/Tribe Certificate. 12. In our view, all the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner being devoid of merit, we reject the same. The petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. -----