JUDGMENT : Swapna Joshi, J. 1. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the decision of respondent no.2-Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Amravati, rendered on 22.10.2001, by which the caste certificate of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Dhoba’ Scheduled Tribe, issued by the Executive Magistrate, Akola, on 19.6.1981 has been invalidated. 2. The petitioner is working as Talathi, under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola. The petitioner claims that he belongs to ‘Dhoba’ community, which has been notified as a Scheduled Tribe at Sr. No.18 in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in relation to the State of Maharashtra. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of verification. The petitioner submitted in support of his tribe claim, eleven documents before the said Committee. However, the said Committee without considering those documents, passed the order invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish socio-cultural affinity and ethnic linkage with ‘Dhoba’ sub-tribe of Gond, Scheduled Tribe. The Committee observed, ‘Dhoba’ Scheduled Tribe has not been listed as an independent single entry, but it has been clubbed along with numerous of the synonyms and sub-tribes included in the Gond, Scheduled Tribe, listed at Sr. No.18”. The Committee relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dadaji @ Dina vs. Sukhdeo Babu & others, reported in 1980 S.C.R.150, wherein it has been held that “only the ‘Mana’’ community having affiliation with the ‘Gond’ Scheduled Tribe will fall within the scope of the entry”. It is observed in the impugned order passed by the said Committee that the applicant could not bring out the distinct socio-cultural traits, customs and traditions prevalent in ‘Dhoba’ ‘sub-tribe of ‘Gond’’ Scheduled Tribe. Whatever information has been furnished by the applicant drifts away from that with regard to the traits and characteristics of ‘Dhoba’ sub tribe of ‘Gond’ Scheduled Tribe community. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner. 3. Significantly, the controversy involved in this petition is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 98 . Thus, the Scrutiny Committee rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner. 3. Significantly, the controversy involved in this petition is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 98 . The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the judgments one in the case of Dina vs. Narayansingh, reported in (1968) 38 ELR 212 and, another, in the case of Dadaji @ Dina vs. Sukhdeo Babu, reported in (1980) 1 SCC 621 stand impliedly overruled by the decision of Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind, reported in 2001(1) SCC 4 . The Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Mana Adim Jamat Mandal (supra) held that each of the tribes specified in entry No.18 must be deemed to be a separate tribe and not sub-tribe of ‘Gond’. ’. 4. Applying the principle laid down as above, in Mana Adim Jamat Mandal’s case, we hold that tribe ‘Dhoba’’ in Entry No.18 of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 in relation to the State of Maharashtra is an independent and separate tribe and not a sub-tribe of ‘Gond’’ and the petitioner was not required to establish his affinity with ‘Gond’’ Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the observations of the Committee that the petitioner has failed to establish his affinity with ‘Gond’ cannot be sustained and the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Scrutiny Committee has to examine the case of the petitioner for ‘Dhoba’’ Scheduled Tribe category, which is not a sub-tribe of ‘Gond’. ’. 5. In view of the aforesaid fact-situation, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order dated 22/10/2001 passed by the respondent no. 2-Committee is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is remanded back to the Respondent no.2-Committee for a fresh consideration, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court and the observations made by this Court. (iv) The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 29th August, 2017. The Committee can thereafter proceed to decide the claim in accordance with law. (v) Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.