ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per Chavan, J. ) 1. Rule. By consent made returnable forthwith. _ 2. This petition raises question of scrutiny of a migrant's claim belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur refused to verify the petitioner's caste claim by its order dated 2nd January, 2006, holding that the native place of the petitioner was Mungnapar, District : Chhindwara (M.P.) and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to have his claim scrutinized by the said Committee. 3. We have heard learned Advocate Shri Borkar for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. Shri Fulzele for respondent No.1 and learned Advocate Shri P.B. Patil for respondent No.2-Caste Scrutiny Committee. 4. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sudhakar Vitthal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2004(4) Mh.L.J. 784 , where the Court had specifically considered the question of an applicant, original resident of Chhindwara district of Madhya Pradesh, seeking verification of his caste claim in Maharashtra State the Committee could not have refused to entertain the petitioner's caste claim. In this context, it may be appropriate to reproduce paragraph 5 of the Apex Court judgment as under : _ 5. But the question which arises for consideration herein appears to have not been raised in any other case. It is not in dispute that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered disadvantages and denied facilities for development and growth in several States. They are required protective preferences, facilities and benefits inter alia in the form of reservation, so as to enable them to compete on equal terms with the more advantageous and developed sections of the community. The question is as to whether the appellant being a Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/ Halbi which stands recognized both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of Maharashtra having their origin in the Chhindwara region, a part of which, on States' reorganization, has come to State of Maharashtra, was entitled to the benefit of reservation? It is one thing to say that the expression .in relation to that State occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be given as effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in other State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is another thing to say that when an area dominated by members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed and answered would be as to whether the members of the scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of States' Reorganization Act. With a view to find out as to whether any particular area of the country was required to be given protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the District of Chhindwara and the part of area of Chandrapur at one point of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitutional Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as it originally stood the Tribe Halba _ / Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various elements which constitute the input for specification may not be totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after reorganization might have agreed for inclusion of the said Tribe Halba/ Halbi as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra having regard to the said fact in mind.. 5. In fact, relying on the aforesaid judgment, a Division Bench of this Court, on 15th March, 2007, deciding Writ Petition No.3668 of 2006 (Hitesh Dasiram Murkute Vs. State of Maharashtra & oth) to which one of us (R.C.Chavan,J) was party, had held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to examine the caste claims of the persons who become migrants who are residents of same geographical areas and on account of reorganization of the States. 6. State of Maharashtra & oth) to which one of us (R.C.Chavan,J) was party, had held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to examine the caste claims of the persons who become migrants who are residents of same geographical areas and on account of reorganization of the States. 6. In view of this, we hold that respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee was not justified in refusing to examine the petitioner's caste claim. The impugned order dated 02.01.2006 is, therefore, set aside and the Committee is directed to examine the caste claim of the petitioner within three months from the appearance of the petitioner before the Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 19th May, 2008. The petitioner shall tender evidence before the Committee to show that he belongs to .Gond. Scheduled Tribe, (and not a caste/ tribe _ of the same nomenclature), which has been notified as Scheduled Tribe, both in the State of origin i.e. Madhya Pradesh and the State of Maharashtra. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.