Judgment : Oral Judgment: (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. None for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader is present for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The matter pertains to caste claim and this Court has not granted any interim order to the petitioner. The petitioner then aged about 25 years had sought validity as 'Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe' candidate. Basic certificate is issued to him by the Executive Magistrate, Daryapur, District Amravati on 26.6.1984. The said certificate and tribe claim was invalidated by first authority viz. the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Committee, Maharashtra State, Pune on 04.05.1986. As per the procedure then prevailing, petitioner assailed this adjudication by filing an appeal before the respondent no.2. Respondent no.-2 Additional Commissioner has dismissed that appeal on 07.08.1993. 2. Shri Fulzele, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 has sought time to assist the Court as relevant records are not with him. However, on legal issues, he has invited our attention to 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 781 (Raju vs. Establishment Officer, MSEB) and 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 314 (Deepak Shriram Kale vs. State of Maharashtra and others). We find it appropriate to refer to these judgments little later. 3. The facts noted by us above show that the adjudication by respondent no.3 Committee or by the Appellate Authority is prior to 02.09.1994 i.e. the date on which the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered the judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 94 (Kum. Madhuri Patil vs. State of Maharashtra). By the said judgment, for the first time the Hon'ble Apex Court evolved a scientific procedure for proper verification of such claims. The composition of a Committee, Association of Research Officers with it and opportunity to be given to such candidate after receipt of Police Vigilance report, are some of the important features in the said judgment. The composition of committee, as laid down therein has been slightly altered by later judgment in the year 1997. However, that aspect is not very relevant before us. 4. After this judgment and during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the State of Maharashtra has from 23.05.2001 brought into force the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No.23 of 2001). 4. After this judgment and during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, the State of Maharashtra has from 23.05.2001 brought into force the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No.23 of 2001). The Maharashtra Scheduled tribe (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2003 have been framed by the State Government through its Tribal Development Department on 04.06.2003 under this Act. Perusal of said 2001 Act and 2003 Rules is, essential. 5. Section 2[b] of the above Act defines 'Competent Authority' and it also includes and envisages an Authority competent to issue caste certificate prior to coming into force of the said Act. The provisions of Section 2[k] define 'Scrutiny Committee' as a Committee constituted under Section 6[1] of the said Act. In contradistinction, it is important to note that this provision does not recognize any earlier Scrutiny Committee or similar authority or even the appellate authority constituted under a government notification or any circular or other instrument and does not cover it within its sweep . Section 4 stipulates that the caste certificate needs to be issued by the competent authority only. Sub-section [2] of Section 4 mandates that such caste certificate issued by the competent authority shall be valid only subject to its verification and grant of a validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 6 prescribes the procedure for verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. These provisions and consequentially Act 23 of 2001, therefore do not tolerate validity given by any other authority as legal and binding for any purpose. 6. These provision therefore, show that though a caste certificate may have been procured prior to coming into force of the Act No.23 of 2001 and is still not verified, it must be verified by the scrutiny committee functioning under Section 6[1] of the said Act, and thereafter only, it can be treated as valid and binding. If the certificate is already validated by the competent Court of Law, said Section 4(2) may not have any application. 7. If the certificate is already validated by the competent Court of Law, said Section 4(2) may not have any application. 7. Though the term "validity certificate" as such is not defined by the Act 23 of 2001, however, the above mentioned 2003 Rules vide Rule 2[h] define that phrase to mean 'a certificate issued by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee validating the Scheduled tribe Certificate issued by the competent authority'. Thus, these provisions again contemplate that validity certificate, in order to be binding, must be issued by a Scrutiny Committee, constituted and functioning under Section 6 of the Act no.23 of 2001. 8. We here note that by Section 7, the said Scrutiny Committee can also suo moto look into the caste claim and cancel a false caste certificate and confiscate it. Section 8 is about burden of proof and it cast burden on the claimant/applicant. Section 9 gives powers of Civil Court to the competent Authority, Appellate Authority and the Scrutiny Committee. The powers under the Code of Civil Procedure regarding summoning and enforcing attendance and examination on oath, requiring discovery and production of any document, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any Court or office and issue commission for examination of witness, are powers thus conferred upon the Scrutiny Committee. Provisions of Section 15 show that a Civil Court is denuded of jurisdiction to entertain, to continue or to decide any suit or proceeding and it can't pass any decree or order, or execute the same, if the claim involved in such suit or proceedings or after the passing of such decree or order or its execution is, in any way contrary to the provisions of Act No.23 of 2001. 9. We therefore, find that after 23.05.2001, for the first time a specialized and statutory body named as the Scrutiny Committee has been entrusted with the job of ascertaining the caste claim and to grant validity. It has been given necessary technical assistance of officers designated as "Research Officer" having knowledge of anthropology or affinity etc. The police officers also assist it by conducting a vigilance inquiry. 10. Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to a judgment reported at 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 781 (Raju vs. Establishment Officer, MSEB). There facts show that the caste claim of petitioner Raju, was invalidated and in appeal the claim was allowed. The police officers also assist it by conducting a vigilance inquiry. 10. Shri Fulzele, learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to a judgment reported at 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 781 (Raju vs. Establishment Officer, MSEB). There facts show that the caste claim of petitioner Raju, was invalidated and in appeal the claim was allowed. In this background, after petitioner continued in service on the basis of the said validity, and was selected for appointment to higher post as Executive Engineer, he was not issued the appointment order. But his employer by a communication dated 04.06.2003 again asked him to produce a validity. Thus, validity of such demand after the validity of caste certificate had attained finality, in the light of provisions of Section 4[2] of the Act No.23/2001, was required to be looked into by the said Division Bench. The said judgment is delivered on 06.08.2003 and provisions of 2003 Rules which had come into force on 04.06.2003 defining "validity certificate:, were not required to be looked into by the said Bench. Similarly other material provisions looked into by us above were not pressed into service. 11. Another Division Bench of this Court in 2008 (1) Mh.L.J. 314 (Deepak Shriram Kale vs. State of Maharashtra and others) has considered this judgment and distinguished it on facts. The facts in later judgment show that the caste certificate of petitioner - Deepak, was cancelled and on 04.01.1982 and that cancellation was maintained by the Collector, Akola. This order of Collector was questioned in Writ Petition, which was disposed of on 31.01.2003. The Collector, was directed to decide the genuineness and correctness of caste certificate without going into the question, whether the petitioner belonged to Scheduled Tribe 'Kharia' or not. By his order dated 01.01.2004 the Collector, held that the certificate was issued by the then Executive Magistrate and it was genuine. The employer Bank than wrote to Deepak and asked him to produce the relevant documents i.e. validity. The petitioner then requested his employer to accept the decision of the Collector mentioned above. The said request was not granted and petitioner Deepak approached this Court in Writ Petition No.4770/1994 which was withdrawn on 27.07.2005 with liberty to file a representation to the employer for protection of his services. The petitioner then requested his employer to accept the decision of the Collector mentioned above. The said request was not granted and petitioner Deepak approached this Court in Writ Petition No.4770/1994 which was withdrawn on 27.07.2005 with liberty to file a representation to the employer for protection of his services. The contention of learned Counsel for Deepak in the reported judgment was that, the question whether Deepak belonged to Kharia Scheduled Tribe or not was already concluded and thereafter only the certificate dated 04.01.1982 came to be issued. The Division Bench did not accept the said contention and held that the certificate dated 04.01.1982 issued to Deepak required verification. Thus various provisions of Act No.23 of 2001 and the definition of 'Validity Certificate' given in 2003 Rules were not required to be looked into in the said matters. 12. In present matter, the caste claim of petitioner has still not attained the finality. This Court has to appreciate the material on record and reach suitable conclusion open to it in writ jurisdiction. It is admitted that Scrutiny Committee constituted under Section 6 of Act No.23 of 2001 has never inquired into the validity of the petitioner's caste claim. Thus, even if this Court in present Writ Petition decides to grant validity or then dismiss the petition, still the effect contemplated by State Legislature through Section 4[2] read with Section 6 of the Act No.23 of 2001, will not be achieved. After said enactment, the caste certificate needs to be verified by a scrutiny committee under section 6 of the said Act, otherwise, the caste certificate cannot be recognized as valid and binding. Any adjudication on caste is bound to affect all relatives and hence, it is expedient that the same should be first looked into by the specialized body with necessary technical expertize and paraphernalia. The verification through such Scrutiny Committee is in consonance with the statutory mandate and can be undertaken without prejudice to anybody in present matter. 13. Hence, we set aside the order dated 04.05.1986 passed by the respondent no.3 and order dated 07.08.1993 passed by the respondent no.2 and direct the respondents to forward the caste claim of petitioner to the competent Tribe Claim Verification Committee at Amravati. We direct the petitioner to appear before the said Committee on 30.08.2013 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. We direct the petitioner to appear before the said Committee on 30.08.2013 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. The Committee shall attempt to complete the process of verification of tribe claim in accordance with the provisions of law and within a further period of one year. 14. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.