JUDGMENT : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order dated 20th July, 2018 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, in exercise of powers conferred by the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001”). 2. This writ petition has been moved in extreme urgency, according to the petitioner's counsel Mr. Mendadkar. When it was mentioned yesterday, it is solemnly stated by Mr. Mendadkar and in the presence of his client or her guardian that in this case, the petitioner had sought the caste validity certificate because she was desirous of seeking admission in the ongoing admission process (2018-19) and against a reserved seat. The petitioner is aged 19 years and residing in District Ahmednagar. She claimed a certificate of validity by stating that she is possessing a caste/tribe certificate issued by the competent authority. 3. When the caste certificate is being relied upon so as to claim benefit or concession meant for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it is incumbent upon the candidate to then produce a certificate of validity which is granted in terms of the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001, after a scrutiny and verification of the underlying claim. By that process, the State ensures that the benefit is not snatched or taken away by persons, who do not belong to that tribe or caste. 4. We have been regularly dealing with these cases and which arise out of challenge to the order of the Scrutiny Committee, which is a statutory committee discharging statutory functions and duties under the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 and the rules framed thereunder. The Scrutiny Committee in this case is the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik. It comprises of a Member Secretary Smt. J.V. Kumare. She is also the Deputy Director and in the services of the Government of Maharashtra. The Vice Chairman of the Committee and the Joint Commissioner of Tribal Department is Mr. D.K. Panmand and Smt. S.P. Ahirrao is the Research Officer and all of them are in services of the Government of Maharashtra. 5. She is also the Deputy Director and in the services of the Government of Maharashtra. The Vice Chairman of the Committee and the Joint Commissioner of Tribal Department is Mr. D.K. Panmand and Smt. S.P. Ahirrao is the Research Officer and all of them are in services of the Government of Maharashtra. 5. Before this three member committee, the petitioner placed her claim and she stated that this very Scrutiny Committee has issued several certificates of validity. The certificates of validity have been issued, inter-alia to her father Sunil Mohan Shinde on 3rd January, 2003. Thereafter, her real uncle Subhash Shinde, cousin uncle Chandrakant Shinde and another cousin uncle Ramdas Shinde, cousin brother Prasad Shinde and recently, Akash Shinde, the another cousin brother are the recipients of the certificates of validity. To her father, the certificate of validity was issued on 3rd January, 2003 and to her uncles, in the year 2003 and to her cousins in September, 2008 and July, 2013. Thus, the certificate of validity issued to her father has still not been cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Relying upon this material, the petitioner expected that the certificate of validity would be issued to her. Her claim was still been subjected to a rigorous scrutiny in the sense, it was forwarded to the Vigilance Cell attached to the committee. The Vigilance Cell made some inquiries and forwarded its report to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee was thus obliged to issue a notice to the petitioner, calling upon her to show cause as to why the findings in the Vigilance Committee's report, if favourable, should not be discarded or disbelieved. The petitioner answered this notice by pointing out that she is Hindu Thakar. The characteristics, customs, rituals etc. in the community and further the language dialect and other details were already pointed out when the certificates of validity were issued to her close relatives on the paternal side. 7. With all this, Mr. Mendadkar submitted that the certificate of validity was expected and to be issued with promptitude. Instead, the petitioner is visited with an adverse order dated 20th July, 2018. 8. The order has been perused by us with the assistance of Mr. Mendadkar and Mr. Kalel learned AGP on two occasions, namely, yesterday and today. We had an occasion to deal with identical matters and arising out of an order passed by this very committee. Instead, the petitioner is visited with an adverse order dated 20th July, 2018. 8. The order has been perused by us with the assistance of Mr. Mendadkar and Mr. Kalel learned AGP on two occasions, namely, yesterday and today. We had an occasion to deal with identical matters and arising out of an order passed by this very committee. It has followed in this case its earlier decision. There is a pattern which is evident from this committee's orders. We had to strongly deprecate its approach in deliberately brushing aside the binding orders of this court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. We noticed a defiant attitude and in the language of the order itself, we could see that repeatedly, the candidates and applicants rely on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court laying down salutary principles, based on which, scrutiny and verification in relation to or pertaining to the claims under Entry No. 44 of the presidential notification relating to Scheduled Trbies has to be undertaken. The Scrutiny Committee feels that each case has to be decided on its own merits. Therefore, orders issuing certificates of validity even within the family would not have any binding or persuasive effect. Even if the certificate of validity has been issued after a contest before a court of law, particularly this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, such orders do not prevent the Scrutiny Committees or preclude them from holding an independent inquiry and going into the genuineness and bona-fides of every claim. Proceeding on these lines, these judicial orders are kept aside and each claim is taken up, according to the Scrutiny Committee and decided, on its own merits. 9. Resultantly, what we find is a reference made very conveniently to portions or paragraphs from the Hon'ble Supreme Court's and this court's orders, reproducing them and reading them out of context and applying them blindly to every case. This is a cut, copy and paste exercise. In every matter, these cannot be a scenario where identical reasoning appears in orders rejecting the claim. If the Scrutiny Committee feels that it is obliged to pass a reasoned order, as is done, it has framed an Issue as if this is a lis or a contest, in which the State has a stake and it should be treated as an opponent. If the Scrutiny Committee feels that it is obliged to pass a reasoned order, as is done, it has framed an Issue as if this is a lis or a contest, in which the State has a stake and it should be treated as an opponent. Even if the State machinery supports an individual applicant or candidate, still, it is the Scrutiny Committee, which takes an adversarial position. We have been noticing that when the Scrutiny Committee's orders are challenged in this court and they are set aside, it is not the State Government or the Department of Tribal Development or Social Welfare, which is aggrieved by the order of this court. It is the Scrutiny Committee, which challenges this court's orders before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Be that as it may, what the committee has been doing is to frame issues and one of the issues in this case is "whether certificate of validity issued to the members of the family would preclude the committee from taking an independent view based on merits of individual case." In the instant case, Issue No. 4 at internal page no. 21, running page no. 40 is the relevant issue and during the course of the discussion on that issue, the Scrutiny Committee observes as under:- “10. Issue No. 4 - Whether issuance of validity certificates to relatives of candidate, preclude this committee from adjudicating claim of candidate on merit in accordance with law? No. (a) At the outset it is necessary to note that in view of specific provisions u/s. 6 of Mah. SC, ST (V.J.), NT, OBC & SBC. (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 r/w. Rule 11 & 12 of Mah. S. T. (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) certificate Rules, 2003, it is mandatory duty of the Scrutiny Committee to ascertain genuineness of tribe claim of the individual applicant. Same is the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Raviprakash Babulalsing Parmar, (2007) 1 SCC 80 . S. T. (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) certificate Rules, 2003, it is mandatory duty of the Scrutiny Committee to ascertain genuineness of tribe claim of the individual applicant. Same is the view taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Raviprakash Babulalsing Parmar, (2007) 1 SCC 80 . (b) Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Deoraj Bhiwapurkar, (2008) 9 SCC 54 , clearly recorded as under:- “.....it must be pointed out that only because, by mistake or otherwise, a member of his family had been declared to be belonging to a member of the Scheduled Tribe, the same by itself would not be conclusive in nature so as to bind another committee while examining the case of other members of the family in some detail. If it is found that in granting a certificate in favour of a member of a family, vital evidences had been ignored, it would be open to the Committee to arrive at a different finding.” Almost similar view is also taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in order dated 22.3.2007 in Writ Petition No. 1953/2007, Dipika Subhash More vs. State of Maharashtra and against the same SLP (C) No. 20838/2007 (CC....9744) was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 8.10.2007. (c) The applicant has relied upon validity certificates issued to the following persons:- (1) Prasad Chandrabhan Shinde (Applicants Cousin Brother):- Nashik committee has issued a validity certificate to Prasad Chandrabhan Shinde on 4.9.2006. This validity was issued on the basis of validity issued to his father Chandrabhan Bhagwan Shinde. In case file of Prasad Chandrabhan Shinde vigilance cell enquiry was not conducted. (2) Aakash Chandrabhan Shinde (Applicants Cousin Brother):- Nashik committee has issued a validity certificate to Akash Chandrabhan Shinde applicant on 24.06.2013. In case file of Aakash Chandrabhan Shinde vigilance cell enquiry was not conducted. Both the above validities cannot be considered for decision because the legal position and the fact at the time of present decision is different than above. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons we answer the issue no. 4 in the negative.” 10. The another issue which the committee feels that it is obliged to frame despite the constitutional amendment in 1976, is whether the persons claiming certificate of validity hail from a region or area, where the caste or tribe is to be predominantly found? Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons we answer the issue no. 4 in the negative.” 10. The another issue which the committee feels that it is obliged to frame despite the constitutional amendment in 1976, is whether the persons claiming certificate of validity hail from a region or area, where the caste or tribe is to be predominantly found? Therefore, even if the area restriction is removed, the Scrutiny Committee feels that whether a candidate or his family hails from that particular region, which was specified against the Entry in the earlier presidential notification, should even now be verified. The next part is that the committee is obliged to satisfy itself whether the candidate has established his affinity to the particular tribe/caste. 11. Since this reasoning is common to all the matters and pertinently to Thakar, Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, we have been, apart from deprecating this course charted by the committees, called upon the committees through the learned AGP to furnish an explanation as to how this is permissible, despite the binding orders and directions of this court. The standard and stereotype answer is that the committee feels that every claim must be decided on its own merits. Secondly, the views and decisions of the courts have to be reconciled. Thirdly, anthropological data would pinpoint that these certificate holders have no connection with the areas, where the Thakars are predominantly found. Thus, these persons are scattered all over the State, residing in areas, which are nothing but cities and towns and are, therefore, trying to usurp all benefits by posing themselves as tribals. When their dresses and living is modern, then, it is inconceivable that they can be termed as tribals. It is this approach, which has coloured the vision of the Scrutiny Committee throughout. The solemn and serious duty, while scrutinising such claims, is that the verification is not a process of insulting or humiliating a family. One cannot presume that every claimant is dishonest. The Scrutiny Committee feels otherwise and particularly in relation to these tribals. 12. In the reasoning of the committee and as reproduced above, it is apparent that it has not made any reference to the certificate of validity issued to petitioner's father on 3rd January, 2003, though the complete genealogical tree was placed before it. The Scrutiny Committee feels otherwise and particularly in relation to these tribals. 12. In the reasoning of the committee and as reproduced above, it is apparent that it has not made any reference to the certificate of validity issued to petitioner's father on 3rd January, 2003, though the complete genealogical tree was placed before it. In the memo of the writ petition, there are averments in paras 3 and 4 of the petition and which read as under:- “3. This is a strange case where the Respondent no. 2 committee itself granted certificate of validity to the father of the petitioner namely Sunil Mohan Shinde adjudicating and determining the social status as belonging to Thakar, scheduled tribe and issued consequently caste validity certificate on 3rd January, 2003. Yet, the Respondent no. 2 committee invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner on the logic bordering on perversity. The Petitioner states that in addition to caste validity certificate granted to her father, also placed on record caste validity certificate granted to her real uncle Subhash Shinde on 3.9.2003, cousin uncle Chandrabhan Bhagwan Shinde dated 22.10.2003 in favour of Ramadas Bhagwan Shinde, the cousin uncle, cousin brother Prasad Shinde on 4.9.2008 and another caste validity certificate dated 24.7.2013 issued by the Respondent no. 2 committee itself in favour of Akash Chandrabhan Shinde, cousin brother of the petitioner. True and correct copies of these certificates of validity granted to blood relatives of the petitioner from paternal side along with genealogy tree are hereto annexed and marked collectively as Exh.B. 4. The petitioner states that apart from abovesaid certificates of validity placed on record, she has also placed on record basic and fundamental documents in relation to her blood relatives from paternal side including 7/12 extract showing tribal status of her family in revenue records. True and correct copies of documents placed on record by the petitioner are hereto annexed and marked collectively as Exh.C.” 13. These averments are not denied. The records before the committee indicate that these documents were indeed produced and specifically relied upon. Yet, there is no reference to all these documents, but selectively, two of the certificates of validity are referred, but reliance thereon is turned down on some grounds, which are ex-facie untenable. These averments are not denied. The records before the committee indicate that these documents were indeed produced and specifically relied upon. Yet, there is no reference to all these documents, but selectively, two of the certificates of validity are referred, but reliance thereon is turned down on some grounds, which are ex-facie untenable. Law frowns upon such reasoning for in several orders of this court, some of them passed by this very Bench, it is impressed upon the Scrutiny Committee that it can no longer rely on the area restriction. It can no longer take a view that certificates of validity issued to either father, real sister, real brother or close relatives from the paternal side have no evidentiary value. They cannot be discarded unless there is an established or proven fraud or suppression of facts. The gross suppression of facts would lead the committee to hold that such documents are no longer valid proof. It is not as if this court is in the habit of setting aside all the orders of the Scrutiny Committee. When the orders of the committee are challenged, the learned AGP, apart from acting as an officer of this court, takes instructions from the committee members and the court gives them an opportunity not only to place before this court the relevant material, but also produce the original records. We do not go by a one-sided version. We verify independently from the original records as to whether the factual position, as narrated, is indeed accurate or otherwise. When such an exercise is undertaken by this court, then, we do not see how the Scrutiny Committees can act in defiance of its binding orders. 14. In Writ Petition No. 7 of 2014 in the case of Motilal Namdeo Pawar vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik and Others, decided on 22nd December, 2017, this Division Bench had an occasion to consider identical controversy. In a detailed judgment running into 44 pages, while setting aside the very committee's orders, all these aspects were brought to its notice. In fact, this was the very committee, which stoutly defeated its action. Thereafter as well, we gave several chances to the Scrutiny Committee. We have compelled to set aside the orders and issuing positive directions. 15. Thus, it is the Scrutiny Committee which has generated litigation. In fact, this was the very committee, which stoutly defeated its action. Thereafter as well, we gave several chances to the Scrutiny Committee. We have compelled to set aside the orders and issuing positive directions. 15. Thus, it is the Scrutiny Committee which has generated litigation. Once this exercise was completed in the case of Motilal Pawar (supra) and other matters, we expected the Nashik Committee to correct itself. It should have undertaken a corrective path. We do not know what pleasure the committee members derive when they reject genuine claims and while they reject others but on such grounds, which cannot be supported even by the learned AGP in the teeth of the binding judgments. In the case of Motilal (supra), this court held as under:- “1. The present writ petition is one in the series where Respondent No. 1, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for short, hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No. 1 Committee), on verification of the claim of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, has rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the grounds which have been found to be unsustainable by this court in a series of judgments. 2. We have perused the impugned order. The order runs into 33 pages. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is nothing but a repetition of the grounds which, the Respondent No. 1-Committee usually tenders, while rejecting the claims referred to it, as belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. The Committee before referring to the documents furnished by the applicant/petitioner in support of his claim, categorized the documents which included the school leaving certificate in respect of the applicant's father - Shri Namdev Sakharam Pawar issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad Prathmik Vidya- Mandir, Anturli Bk., Tal. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, wherein the caste of applicant's father is recorded as Thakur and the date of the admission is reflected as 02.07.1942. Another document, the Respondent No. 1 Committee has referred to as furnished by the applicant, is the xerox copy of general school admission extract of his father - Namdev Sakharam Pawar issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad Prathmik vidya Mandir, Anturli Bk., Tal. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, wherein the caste is recorded as Thakur and date of admission is 02.07.1942. Another document is the school leaving certificate in respect of one Kashiram Supdu Thakur, issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Anjanvihire, Tal. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, wherein the caste is recorded as Thakur and date of admission is 02.07.1942. Another document is the school leaving certificate in respect of one Kashiram Supdu Thakur, issued by the Head Master, Zilla Parishad Prathmik Vidya Mandir, Anjanvihire, Tal. Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon, wherein the caste is recorded as Thakur and the date of the admission is 01.02.1920. These are some of the documents which have been relied upon by the applicant and those are pre-constitutional, wherein the caste of the near relatives of the petitioner, has been recorded as Thakur. 3. The Respondent No. 1 - Committee then proceeds to frame three issues namely: (i) whether the tribe claim of the applicant is proved by way of documentary evidence, (ii) whether the applicant has established ethnic linkages towards Thakur, scheduled tribe community and (iii) whether the applicant has established the affinity towards Thakur, scheduled tribe appearing at serial no. 44. The issues framed by the Committee in the impugned order are identical to the issues which are usually framed by the Committee, while deciding any claim belonging to any Scheduled Tribe category. Perusal of the impugned order reflects an interesting reading; as far as issue no. 1 is concerned, the Committee has dealt-with the documents produced by the petitioner/applicant before it individually. As regards the documents pertaining to the year 1942, the Respondent No. 1 Committee has observed that in all the documents the caste is recorded as Hindu Thakur and/or Thakur. The Committee further proceeded to observe that as the claimants were claiming themselves as belonging to Scheduled Tribe, the Committee cannot solely rely upon the documentary evidence such as school record, birth record or other revenue records etc. where the caste is reflected as Hindu Thakur or Thakur because so far as Thakur is concerned, the said caste is also found in other communities also. For the said proposition, the Committee then makes a reference to the judgment of this court in Writ Petition No. 1953 of 2007, Dipika Subhash More vs. State of Maharashtra and Others and in particular to para 8 of the said judgment. In para 8 this court has observed that: "8. Mere mentioning of the name Thakur against the caste column in any public document cannot be a sole ground to hold that person belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. As Thakurs are found amongst Kshatriya, Rajput, Sindhi, Maratha, Bramhins etc. In para 8 this court has observed that: "8. Mere mentioning of the name Thakur against the caste column in any public document cannot be a sole ground to hold that person belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. As Thakurs are found amongst Kshatriya, Rajput, Sindhi, Maratha, Bramhins etc. In the said circumstances, as indicated above, the affinity text becomes crucial......" The reference is also made by the Scrutiny Committee to the observations made by this Court at Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 2791 of 2011, Chetan Yuvraj Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, in particular paras 8 and 11 of the same, which read thus: "8. The next of the submission of the learned counsel was that the document regarding grandfather of the petitioner right from 1929 would show that he belonged to Thakur Community, which fact has not been appreciated in proper perspective by the respondent no. 2 Committee. However, the respondent no. 2 Committee has, in fact, appreciated the said document as could be seen from internal page no. 15(d) of the impugned judgment. The Committee has pointed out that the said document does not show that the grandfather of the petitioner belonged to Thakur Scheduled Tribe." ".......11. In the circumstances, the Committee rightly observed that Thakur caste is also found in non-tribal communities such as Kshtriya Thakur, Rajput Thakur, Pardeshi Thakur, etc. and unless the Petitioner established ethnic linkage and affinity test to prove that he belongs to Thakur Tribe, the certificate cannot be validated." Based on this, the Committee sets out that since the caste Thakur is also found in other communities, merely relying on the documentary evidence can benefit the pseudo claimants who intend to take benefit of their caste entries as Thakur in the school records and other records and due to mass awakening, such claimants are trying to grab benefits meant for the weaker sections by taking advantage of similarity of nomenclature and pass themselves as Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. Respondent No. 1-Committee observe that it would be imperative to rely upon the affinity test to verify whether the claimant is really belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or not and that the applicant will have to establish his affinity and ethnic linkages towards Thakur, scheduled tribe community at serial no. 44. Respondent No. 1-Committee observe that it would be imperative to rely upon the affinity test to verify whether the claimant is really belonging to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe or not and that the applicant will have to establish his affinity and ethnic linkages towards Thakur, scheduled tribe community at serial no. 44. As regards the validity certificate, on which the petitioner has placed reliance in respect of the one Sunildatta Dattatraya Pawar, issued by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Committee at Nashik dated 28.08.2000. The Committee observed that the validity holder has not filed any affidavit and/or nor produced any documentary evidence to establish his blood relation with the applicant and it also further observed that the said certificate was issued by the Committee on the basis of the law laid down by the High Court in writ petition nos. 2746 of 1998, 5454 of 1998 and 856 of 1989 and the law laid down by the High Court at that relevant time was based on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi and Another vs. State of Kerala and Another, 1994 (1) SCC 359 . The Committee further concludes that while deciding the case of Sunil Murlidhar Thakur, the Apex Court has observed that the view taken by the High Court was not right and that the High court was not justified in disposing of the writ petition by merely making reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Palghat Jill Thandan Samudhya Samrakshan Samithi and Others. The Committee therefore, did not attach any importance to the said validity certificate. 4. As regards issue no. 2 - Whether the applicant has established ethnic linkages towards Thakur, scheduled tribe, the Committee took note of the fact that the petitioner is ordinary resident of village Anturli, Taluk Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon........ The Committee makes following observations in this regard and reproduce the same. "The background is that the said area restriction was removed basically for the election purpose, in as much as a person coming from a particular restricted area in which a particular tribal community was found to be inhabiting. There was always a possibility of such tribal having migrated from that area and inhabiting in an area outside the said restricted area (as shown by the Presidential Order prior to the year 1976). There was always a possibility of such tribal having migrated from that area and inhabiting in an area outside the said restricted area (as shown by the Presidential Order prior to the year 1976). This clearly means that even after the migration, if a person is a tribal and by his migration, he should not cease to be a tribal and should not be deprived from getting the advantages of his being tribal. The area restriction however, did not mean that any person who claims to be a tribal outside the said area where a particular community was not found earlier, his claim to be accepted merely on the face of it. In fact, what is required to be done is that if any person who is at the relevant time residing in an area where there is no original inhabitation of that Scheduled Tribe. If he/she desires to make good his/ her claim about a person belonging to that particular tribe, for example, persons coming from Thakur community will have to establish that they or their predecessors have migrated from such an area and at present are residing in an area where they were not residing prior to area restriction removal notification of the Presidential Order. As a result of removal of area restriction for certain tribal communities, many non-tribal communities having similar nomenclature staying outside the tribal area and also the communities, which belong to entirely different ethnic stocks but having similarity of nomenclature, started claiming the status of those Scheduled Tribes which were confined to their original habitat in tribal pockets. This trend has become more serious and cognizable and sizeable number of such claimants is making endeavour to claim the benefit of constitutional reservations." 5 The Committee then further observes that the applicant's father was admitted in the school in the year 1942 and it is reflected by the fact that his family was well aware of the importance of education and they were educationally well sound even prior to independence and prior to the Presidential Order, 1950 but the applicant's family is not ordinary resident of the restricted area habitated by Thakur, scheduled tribe community. The Committee then makes reference to the judgment of this court in the case of Murlidhar Ramkrishna Ghate vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 2748 of 2000, delivered by the Division Bench, comprising of Hon'ble Justice F.I. Rebello and Hon'ble Justice R.V. More, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has made observations about the population figures of scheduled tribe, including Thakur and it has found enormous increase in the figures in the census of 1981 as compared to preceding census of 1971. These Committees in turn concluded that the petitioner was not an ordinary resident of the habitated area of Thakur community and, therefore, he cannot be said to be belonging to Thakur, scheduled tribe. 7 We do not find that the committee while rejecting the claim of the applicant had adopted any subjective approach to the claim of the petitioner. We had an occasion to deal with several writ petitions, challenging the orders passed by the respondent no. 1-committee so also other committees, empowered to verify the claims of the scheduled tribe in different parts of the State, particularly Thakur, the scheduled tribe. We have noticed that the reasoning adopted by the Committee in rejecting the claim of the persons belonging to Thakur Scheduled tribe are almost identical and the claims are scrutinized mostly under three heads namely (i) sufficiency of documentary evidence (ii) existence of area restrictions with the effect Thakur, who were original residents of 5 districts, as mentioned in Scheduled Tribe Order (1956), being entitled to claim themselves as Thakur scheduled tribe and (iii) affinity test, which would connect claimants to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. We have had an opportunity to peruse various orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee, dealing with the verification of Thakur Scheduled Tribe and we found that the whole premise around which the order of the Committee revolves and the pivotal ground on which the Committee rejects the claim of persons claiming to be Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, is that though the entries may be pre-constitutional era, which shows the caste Thakur, it is not a conclusive proof of the said Thakur, being the Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, which is the entry at serial no. 44. 44. According to the Committee Thakur is also a caste which is found in other communities and therefore, they expected a claimant to prove that a person, who claims to belong to the Thakur, scheduled tribe to have an entry recorded in pre-constitutional document as Thakur, scheduled tribe and not merely Thakur. We are always astonished of the said reasoning adopted by the Committee. We, therefore, perused the entry no. 44 of the Scheduled Tribe Order as it stood in Scheduled Tribe Order of 1950 and the entry no. 44 as it stands today which reads as follows: "44. Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur, Ma Thakar." The entry is Thakur, which is recognized as the Scheduled Tribe amongst other scheduled tribes in the State of Maharashtra. The entry at serial no. 44 is not the Thakur, the scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee is, therefore, required to ascertain on the basis of the documentary evidence, whether the person is Thakur which is recognized as Thakur, scheduled tribe. As long as our experience goes, we have not come across any entry in the documents which are of the pre-constitutional period recording the caste entry as Thakur scheduled tribe. Even in the scheduled tribe order made in the year 1950, the entry plainly reads as Thakur. The scheduled tribe order recognizes existing tribes in the country and enlisted those tribes as scheduled tribes, after obtaining the necessary inputs by issuance of a Notification, recognizing some of tribes in existence as scheduled tribes. Therefore, it is unfathomable to believe that prior to enactment of the Scheduled Tribe Order of 1950, any entries would have been recorded as Thakur scheduled tribe. This expectation of the Committee that the entries ought to have been recorded as Thakur, scheduled tribe, is too much to expect, since that was never the purport of recognition to be granted to the existing tribes as Scheduled Tribe. The person, who claims to be belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe did not foresee that their caste is going to be recognized as the scheduled tribe on the Constitution of India being brought into effect and therefore, they should record their entry as Thakur, scheduled Tribe. The person, who claims to be belonging to Thakur scheduled tribe did not foresee that their caste is going to be recognized as the scheduled tribe on the Constitution of India being brought into effect and therefore, they should record their entry as Thakur, scheduled Tribe. We have noted other entries made in respect of the property dealings, mutation entries, documents in the form of agreement to sale, sale deeds, where it was normal practice to mention the name of the person, his place of residence and to mention his caste. We have not come across any entry in such pre-constitutional documents also reflecting the caste as Thakur, scheduled tribe, but entry Thakur, which is a recognized Scheduled Tribe. The reasoning adopted by the Committee is, therefore, completely fallacious and such reasoning is put-forth by the committee in cases after cases while rejecting the pre-constitutional documents recording caste as Thakur, on illusory reason that the entry recorded is not Thakur, scheduled tribe but is only Thakur. 9. This court had delivered considerable number of Orders/Judgments, touching these three issues and tested the invalidation orders passed by the committee on more than one touchstone. As far as the existence of the documentary evidence is concerned, though it is noted that, as in the present case, that the petitioner has heavily relied upon two documents which are of the pre-constitutional period, the committee has recorded a finding in the impugned order that the entry of caste in these documents is mentioned as Thakur but it is not mentioned as Thakur scheduled tribe. We fail to understand the said stand of the committee, as the entry in the scheduled tribe order is Thakur and a person has to establish his claim as belonging to caste Thakur as finds place in the scheduled tribe order, for the first time introduced in the year 1950 and the Thakur came to be recognized as a scheduled tribe only for the first time in 1950. As such, in the year 1947-48 there could have been no entry as Thakur scheduled tribe. Even as on today, the caste certificates are not issued as Thakur scheduled tribe by the competent authority but the caste certificates mentions the caste as Thakur which is recognized as scheduled tribe since the caste Thakur finds place in the scheduled tribe order. As such, in the year 1947-48 there could have been no entry as Thakur scheduled tribe. Even as on today, the caste certificates are not issued as Thakur scheduled tribe by the competent authority but the caste certificates mentions the caste as Thakur which is recognized as scheduled tribe since the caste Thakur finds place in the scheduled tribe order. Since the scheduled tribe order has come into effect in the year 1950, the documents in existence prior to the inclusion of the caste Thakur in the scheduled tribe order, therefore, have attained great significance to establish the genuineness, with a specific object that the claimant has not manipulated the entries intentionally so as to avail benefit of being a Thakur. It is for this reason that the pre- constitutional documents are given weightage. However, to reject the claim of the claimant like the petitioner on the ground that though the caste is mentioned as Thakur, it is not mentioned as Thakur scheduled tribe, is nothing but an endeavor to defeat the claim of the persons belonging to said caste. Another common ground on which the committee usually reject the claims is that the claimant is not able to establish the affinity test. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anand vs. Committee of Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Another, 2012 (1) SCC 113 , has categorically held that the genuineness of the caste claim has to be considered not only on a thorough examination of the documents submitted in support of the claim but also by applying the affinity test, which would include the anthropological and ethnological traits. Further the Apex Court also observed that it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. Further the Apex Court also observed that it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down an absolute rule, which could be applied mechanically to examine a caste claim. However, the Apex Court has also cautioned that while applying the affinity test, a cautious approach has to be adopted, since a few decades ago, when the tribes were somewhat immune to the cultural development happening around them, the affinity test could serve as a determinative factor, however, with the migrations, modernization and contact with the other communities, these communities tend to develop and adopt new traits which may not essentially match with the traditional characteristics of a tribe and therefore, the affinity test may not be regarded as a litmus test for establishing the link of the applicant with a scheduled tribe. 10. The Apex Court has also observed that the claimant cannot be denied benefit of being belonging to scheduled tribe on the ground that his present traits do not match with that of his tribe's peculiar anthropoligical and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies etc. and thus the affinity test can only be used to corroborate the documentary evidence and should not be the sole criteria to reject the claim. 13. Another ground on which the claim of the petitioner and most of the Thakurs claiming to be scheduled tribe is rejected is that the claim is not from the area where the Thakurs were found in namely, 25 tahsils and 5 districts. This court in the case of Dinesh Ramesh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra, 2012 (4) Mh. L.J. 396 has laid down that the Scrutiny committee is competent to inquire, inter-alia, in the original place of residence and particularly, persons who claims to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe and as such an enquiry is not prohibited. While making the said observations, the court has placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Deepika Subhash More vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, wherein the division bench has observed that removal of area restrictions by the Act of 1976 meant that the persons coming from Thakur community would have to establish on oath or by proper procedure that they migrated from Sahyadri Region after the removal of area restrictions. The said issue was referred to the full bench and the full bench in the case of Yogita D/o Anil Sonawane vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2017 (1) Mh. L.J. 643 has held in para 27 as follows: "27. The relevance of demonstrating as to whether petitioners or their ancestors, who claim the status of Thakur Caste, a Scheduled Tribe, who migrated from the area for which the Thakur tribe and other sub-tribes of Thakur were declared as Scheduled Tribe before the removal of area restriction by Act No. 108 of 1976, was a matter of consideration before the Division Bench in the matter of Dinesh Ramesh Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2012 (4) Mh. L.J. 396 : 2013 (3) Bom. C.R. 463. The Scrutiny Committee has held that the removal of area restriction by Act No. 108 of 1976 would not enable any person belonging to any tribe/community to claim the status of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, and he will have to establish that he or his predecessors have migrated from the earlier prescribed area. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee, in the aforesaid matter, was under challenge before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, on consideration of various judgments of other Division Benches, dealt with the issue, and relying upon Full Bench judgment decision in the matter of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur, has drawn conclusions in para 37 of the judgment, which reads thus: "37. We need not dilate over the issue as, in our view, upon removal of the area restriction by the amending Act of 1976, the persons belonging to a particular Scheduled Tribe, though residing in different areas than earlier specified or migrated from the said area, can also claim to be belonging to the same Scheduled Tribe. In our view, however, the respondent Tribe Scrutiny Committee is not prohibited from applying the test of original place of residence as one of the factors to be considered in arriving at a decision of validation of the claim of the claimant in view of the clear pronouncement of law in Full Bench decision of this court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, quote (supra)." 14. A careful perusal of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders, 1950) would reflect that the said order is published in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution, by the President after consultation with the Governors of the said State. Article 342 of the Constitution of India empowers the President to specify by public notification, the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within the tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of the Constitution, be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes. Article 342 reads as follows: "342 Scheduled Tribes - (1) The President [may with respect to any State [or Union territory], and where it is a State [***] after consultation with the Governor [***] thereof] by public notification, specify the tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within tribes or tribal communities which shall for the purposes of this Constitution be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to that State [or Union territory, as the case may be]. (2) Parliament may by law include in or exclude from the list of Scheduled Tribes specified in a notification issued under clause (1) any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community, but save as aforesaid a notification issued under the said clause shall not be varied by any subsequent notification." Article 340 of the Constitution empowers the President of India to appoint a Commission, consisting of such persons, as he may think fit, to investigate the conditions of socially and educationally backward classes within the territory of India and the difficulties under which they labour and to make recommendation of such steps that should be taken by the Union or any State to remove difficulties and improve their conditions. On recommendations of the Commission, the President is authorized to specify such of the tribes or tribal communities which shall be deemed to be Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State or the Union territory as the case may be. Further it is only the parliament which is authorized by law either to include or exclude any tribe from the list so published. Further it is only the parliament which is authorized by law either to include or exclude any tribe from the list so published. The Scheduled Tribe Order issued by the President of India only identifies certain tribes which are already in existence in the territory of the State, to be Scheduled Tribes, who in turn are entitled for availing of the benefits which are conferred under Part XVI of the Constitution. The Scheduled Tribes Order does not create 'Tribes' but only enlists the tribes on a detailed study by the Commission appointed under Article 340 of the Constitution of India in relation to the backwardness of such tribes as 'Scheduled Tribes' of a particular State so that certain benefits are conferred upon them by the State in exercise of its enabling powers. The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes Orders, 1950) relating to the State of Maharashtra included entry no. 44 in relation to the Thakur tribe. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders, came to be amended by Act No. 63 of 1956 on 25th September, 1956. By the said amendment, the entry in respect of the Thakur tribes came to be amended and entry no. 6 of the Scheduled Tribes Order (Amendment), 1956, pertaining to Bombay State (Part-III) reads as follows:- 6. (a) In Ahmednagar district - Akola, Rahuri and Sangamner talukas Thakur or Thakar including Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar Ma Thakur and Ma Thakar (b) In Kolaba district - Karjat, Khalapur, Pen, Panvel and Sudhagad talukas and Matheran (c) In Nasik district - Igatpuri, Nasik and Sinner talukas (d) In Poona district - Ambegaon, Junnar, Khed (e) In Thana district - Thana, Kalyan, Murbad, Bhivandi Bassein, Wada, Shahapur, Palghar, Jawhar and Mokhada talukas Thus, by the Act of 1956, the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, came to be amended. The said Act No. 63 of 1956, by section 5 provided, that where the list of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to any State was varied by the Amending Act, the population, as at the last Census of the Scheduled Castes or of the Scheduled Tribes in that State shall be ascertained or estimated by the Census Authority in such manner, as may be prescribed and shall be notified by that Authority in the Gazette of India. The change effected in the scheduled appended to Orders of 1950 by the Amendment Act was necessarily by specifying the areas as to whether the enlisted tribe, where the tribes notified throughout the State was recognized as such or tribal population residing in a particular area was declared to be Scheduled Tribes. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders 1950 underwent an amendment by Act No. 108 of 1976, enacted on 18th September, 1976. It would be gainful to reproduce the statement of objects and reasons of the Act No. 108 of 1976, which resulted in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976. The same is reproduced as below: "STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS Under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders some communities have been specified as Scheduled Castes or as Scheduled Tribes only in certain areas of the State concerned and not in respect of the whole State. This has been causing difficulties to members of these communities in the areas where they have not been so specified. The present Bill generally seeks to remove these area restrictions. However, in cases where continuance of such restrictions were specifically recommended by the Joint Committee on the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Bill, 1967, no change is being effected. The Committee had also recommended exclusion of certain communities from the lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. These exclusions are not being made at present and such communities are being retained in the lists with the present area restrictions. Such of the communities in respect of which the Joint Committee had recommended exclusion on the ground that they were not found in a State are, however, being excluded if there were no returns in respect of these communities in the censuses of 1961 and 1971. (Underlining is ours) On perusal of the above SOR, it can be noticed that the existing order, specifying certain communities as scheduled castes or scheduled tribes only in certain areas of the State and not in respect of the whole State, was causing difficulties to members of these communities in the areas where they have not been so specified. With this background, the area restrictions criteria which was introduced in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order, 1956 was done away with. With this background, the area restrictions criteria which was introduced in the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) Order, 1956 was done away with. With the result that the tribe identified as Scheduled tribes in the Scheduled Tribes Order of 1950, as amended by the Act of 1956, came to be recognized as "Scheduled Tribe" throughout the said State, in contrast to they being confined to a particular area of the State. In fact by removal of the area restrictions, the tribe or caste, if it is recognized as a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in the State was entitled to avail the benefits irrespective of the places where they were normally traced to since the tribes normally dwelled in clusters and mostly found in certain hilly areas. However, by the amendment of 1976, the restriction of Thakurs being hailing from the districts specified in 1956 Order was completely done away with. 15. Perusal of Article 342 makes it aptly clear that the tribes or tribal communities specified by the President, in consultation with the Governor of a State, are deemed to be scheduled tribes in relation to that State. Once, such tribe or group of tribes is enlisted in the scheduled tribe order, the said particular tribe or group of tribes is deemed to be "scheduled tribe" for that entire State since the scheduled tribe order notified by the President of India is "in relation to that 'State" there is no intention to sub-divide, classify or discriminate these tribes based on their place of residence or place of their origin and it would rather create class of tribes within the same "tribe" in a particular State. That surely is not the intention flowing from the scheme of the Constitution. The reasoning adopted by the Committee that even after removal of area restrictions, it is incumbent upon the Committees to find out as to from which place the ancestors of the claimant have migrated is, therefore, of not of much significance. We also observe so in the backdrop of a precious fundamental right conferred on every citizen in the form of Article 19 (d) and Article 19 (e) of the Constitution of India, namely to move freely throughout the territory of India and right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. We also observe so in the backdrop of a precious fundamental right conferred on every citizen in the form of Article 19 (d) and Article 19 (e) of the Constitution of India, namely to move freely throughout the territory of India and right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. In any case, imposition by the Amendment Act (1956), the area restriction could not have curtailed the said fundamental right, guaranteed upon the citizens of the country and in identifying the tribes it was never the intention to deprive them of the said fundamental right and could not restrain the advancement of these tribes. 17. We have expressed our anguish in various orders passed by us in respect of the approach of the committees for verification of the scheduled tribe, particularly, examining the claim of Thakur, scheduled tribe. The Committee is unmindful of the onerous duty cast on it to verify the claims referred to it, misdirects itself by observing that the Committee has to examine the claims and to ensure that the pseudo claimant, who claims to be belonging to Thakur, scheduled tribe, do not take benefit meant for the genuine scheduled tribe. The Scrutiny Committee and its members inspite of several rulings in favour of the claimants belonging to the Thakur, scheduled tribe, deliberately brush aside the binding judgments of this court and on umpteen number of times has discarded the validity certificates granted in favour of the close relatives of the claimant on the ground that every case needs to be decided on its own merits or some time on the ground that the certificate of validity produced is issued without any adjudication on merits. We can just be hopeful that the observations made by us, as above, and in various other judgments of this court at times, making stern observations on the Committee's approach would bear some positive changes.” 16. We can just be hopeful that the observations made by us, as above, and in various other judgments of this court at times, making stern observations on the Committee's approach would bear some positive changes.” 16. Further, in an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2336 of 2011, it is held as under:- “The short point raised by learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals is that after the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. 108 of 1976), the area restriction of Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra for the Thakur community has been deleted and all members of Thakur, Thakar, Ka Thakur, Ka Thakar, Ma Thakur and Ma Thakar community are treated to be Scheduled Tribes. The Scrutiny Committee has negated the claim of the appellants on the ground that the relatives of the appellants were not residents of the areas mentioned in the Presidential Order, 1956 and further they were not able to give any details of customs and traditions being observed by the said community. In our considered opinion, that is wholly irrelevant. The appellants have only to establish that they belong to the community mentioned at Serial No. 44 of Part IX of Second Schedule of Act No. 108 of 1976. The High Court has dismissed the Writ Petitions preferred by the appellants only on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee had given detailed reasons and the Court will not go into the merits of the matter afresh. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court for expeditiously deciding the matter afresh in accordance with law. The Civil Appeals as well as the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.” 17. When on the eve of the admission to the Medical and Engineering courses for the current academic year, we find that this court was flooded with writ petitions seeking direction to the committee to verify the claims expeditiously and before the cut off dates. We, therefore, ensured the presence of the learned Advocate General of the State. The learned Advocate General would not have been requested to appear in such matters ordinarily, but the gravity of the situation demanded his presence. There were thousands of claims pending. We, therefore, ensured the presence of the learned Advocate General of the State. The learned Advocate General would not have been requested to appear in such matters ordinarily, but the gravity of the situation demanded his presence. There were thousands of claims pending. The students and parents were eagerly awaiting the outcome of the scrutiny in terms of the statute and enacted by the Maharashtra State Legislature. Mere pendency would not have served any purpose. The committee, through the learned Advocate General placed before us several problems, including the problems faced by their higher officials in the Ministry. We ensured by our orders that the committee gets sufficient staff and infrastructure. The State machinery was geared up and we set a deadline. This has to be set up because a similar direction, issued by the Bench at Aurangabad, did not have the desired effect. After our order and direction, it was stated that a drive has been launched and that would result in clearance of all the cases. 18. The present cases are product of the drive being launched, but Mr. Mendadkar submits and with all humility as an officer of this court that the drive has resulted in each and every claim being doubted and then rejected by applying the same reasoning as if this is an act of revenge on his clients or applicants before the Scrutiny Committee. The committee feels that it is these candidates, who are responsible for dragging it to the court. That is how by a mechanical and stereotype process, it goes on rejecting the claims. Secondly, every single piece of documentary evidence is doubted as lacking in bona-fides or dubious or raising suspicion. Thirdly, if not anything, the candidate is told that you and your predecessors do not hail from the area where this tribe is predominantly found. Mr. Mendadkar submits that by this very reasoning, which has never been accepted by this court and common to every such case, the claims are rejected. We had cautioned the committee that this approach would not be tolerated hereafter. Our caution did not have the desired result. The learned AGP appearing in each of these matters had to virtually concede that the orders may be set aside and the certificate of validity should be issued. 19. We had cautioned the committee that this approach would not be tolerated hereafter. Our caution did not have the desired result. The learned AGP appearing in each of these matters had to virtually concede that the orders may be set aside and the certificate of validity should be issued. 19. When on the eve of the deadline, namely, 3rd August, 2018 such orders have been passed and the candidate was left with no time, but to move this court sometimes at 11.00 in the morning or 3.00 p.m. and request the court to take the cases out of their turn, we had no alternative, but to summon the committee members in the court. The learned Assistant Government Pleaders expressed helplessness and urged that sometimes, even after summoning them, they went back and rejected the claim by the same reasoning. We were fed up with this exercise as well. When this exercise was repeated in this week, we had to call the committee members and seek answers from them. Before us, the three member committee at Nashik, who are routinely passing such orders is present. Firstly, we found that the Vice Chairman Shri. D.K. Panmand and Smt. S.P. Ahirrao-Research Officer stating before us that the orders are prepared by the Member Secretary Smt. J.V. Kumare. They are thereafter signed by them believing that they would stand the scrutiny and test by a court of law or by a higher court. That these orders would contain all the details, references and would deal with all the contentions. That being a quasi judicial exercise, the burden had to be shared given the large number of files before the committee. In this case, they said that the Member Secretary Smt. J.V. Kumare prepared the order and believing her, we signed the same. These statements were made before the Member Secretary was summoned but was to reach the court. 20. Smt. Kumare Member Secretary is present in court. We find her attitude and response to be peculiar. She says that this court has never understood and appreciated the difficulties faced by her while functioning and working as a member of Scrutiny Committee so also the problems faced by other members. They are placed in a piquant and peculiar situation. 20. Smt. Kumare Member Secretary is present in court. We find her attitude and response to be peculiar. She says that this court has never understood and appreciated the difficulties faced by her while functioning and working as a member of Scrutiny Committee so also the problems faced by other members. They are placed in a piquant and peculiar situation. The Commissioner level officers, who are higher in rank in the hierarchy have to be consulted before passing the orders and files have to be made over to them for their opinion. The advise from the Commissioner is that anthropological data should be collected and an anthropologist should give his independent opinion. She stated that the Commissioner in this case told the Committee to forward the file for opinion to one Tribhuvan, who is based at Pune and who is an expert in anthropological matters. 21. It is then stated by Smt. Kumare that the burden is shared and the responsibility as well. The files are distributed not only amongst the members, but others assisting the committee. The officials assisting the Scrutiny Committee go through each file, give their comments and after due deliberations and discussions with other members, the orders are prepared and signed. In this case as well, there was a discussion and deliberation, after which, orders have been prepared and the signatures obtained. She, therefore, denies the statement of the other two persons, who are members of the Scrutiny Committee and states that the orders are not prepared only by her nor are the mistakes attributable solely to her. 22. We are surprised that why the committee members cannot tell their superiors in the hierarchy that they cannot issue any instructions or command. Any overt command has to be ignored for that would be an interference with the exercise of independent statutory power conferred in the Scrutiny Committee. We do not see how, therefore, any command can bind them. We do not understand that in the teeth of binding orders of the court, such commands hold the field. One of the committee members Smt. S.P. Ahirrao is a Research Officer herself. Her research should be sufficient to reach any conclusion. It is not for her to seek opinion of a person other than the committee members. It is an application of mind of three persons, namely, the committee members, which is contemplated by the law. 23. One of the committee members Smt. S.P. Ahirrao is a Research Officer herself. Her research should be sufficient to reach any conclusion. It is not for her to seek opinion of a person other than the committee members. It is an application of mind of three persons, namely, the committee members, which is contemplated by the law. 23. Another strange explanation of Smt. Kumare is that there is joint discussion, which takes place in workshops and seminars organised by the State so as to enlighten and educate the committee members in dealing with the claims. In such exchange of ideas, she has expressed her difficulties, but the State has not given any solution to them. The difficulties are, inter-alia, large number of cases being assigned and there is inadequate staff. The work pressure results in passing of such orders. There is no time at the disposal of the committee to make an independent appraisal in every matter and therefore, such mistakes are committed. She went on and on to the extent of saying that even we are not mindful of these problems and difficulties of the committee members and have rather committed a mistake in summoning her. We told her in open court and equally other members that we derive no pleasure in calling them. We would be the last persons to indulge in such exercise. We have nothing personal against any members of the committee. It is our duty and entrusted by the Constitution, which enables us to remind all concerned that their obligation is to decide cases in accordance with law. The rule of law cannot be a casualty. It would be a mockery if cases are decided in this manner. When quasi judicial powers are vested in the committee, which is a substitute for a civil court, then, it has a higher duty and responsibility. We found Smt. Kumare to be adamant and at times arrogant. She is defiant and unmoved. She maintains that what the committee has done is perfectly in accordance with law. There is no mistake in the order. It is neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Being a Tribal herself, she understands the law and the ground realities better than others is what she solemnly stated. She maintains that what the committee has done is perfectly in accordance with law. There is no mistake in the order. It is neither perverse nor vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Being a Tribal herself, she understands the law and the ground realities better than others is what she solemnly stated. No binding judgment of this court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court disregarded, disrespected and disobeyed in her view. She appears to be stubborn and totally unapologetic. 24. The civil courts would not necessarily complain about lack of infrastructure, lack of staff and lack of assistance from the officers, including advocates. Our Magistrates and Civil Judges are working in worst conditions. In the State of Maharashtra, which is a thickly populated State of nearly 12.5 crores, it is impossible to house every Judge/ Magistrate and quasi judicial officers in modern buildings with all infrastructure in place. The buildings and structures are old, some of them are heritage. Their repairs and maintenance is a enormous task. None of our Judges and Magistrates complain about lack of all this and even basic amenities, much less say that it is the cause or reason for passing erroneous orders. They work in farmore challenging conditions and are confronted almost daily with double the number of cases than the Scrutiny Committees. Magistrates and judges do not avoid or shirk work. They ignore and shrug off pressures from all quarters. They maintain calm, poise and are mature enough to understand that the judgments of higher courts have not be questioned much less challenged. None are summoned by higher courts or are called upon to offer an explanation in open court. 25. We are shocked at the explanation of Smt. Kumare given in open court. This is nothing but an open defiance of this court's authority and we found from her attitude and conduct to be bordering on contempt. Given a chance, the committee members would go back and repeat their act. The members feel that they have done no wrong to anybody far from causing injustice. According to them, a confrontationist attitude would not harm them and they can continue to pass orders compelling and forcing the tribals and downtrodden to move the higher courts. Even if their orders are set aside, they would never be visited with any consequences. 26. The members feel that they have done no wrong to anybody far from causing injustice. According to them, a confrontationist attitude would not harm them and they can continue to pass orders compelling and forcing the tribals and downtrodden to move the higher courts. Even if their orders are set aside, they would never be visited with any consequences. 26. We are, therefore, left with no alternative, while quashing and setting aside the impugned order and granting certificate of validity to the petitioner forthwith, but to direct that the State shall take immediate steps to withdraw the quasi judicial powers and duties from these members of this committee at Nashik. Let the three members face disciplinary action. It is common ground that openly defying and disobeying final and binding orders of the higher court and aggravating that conduct by offering an untenable explanation, showing no remorse is nothing but overreaching its authority. It would be a misconduct. It is unbecoming of a quasi judicial officer to raise his/her voice when summoned in the higher court instead of tendering an unconditional apology for the proven wrong. It is this conduct of Smt. J.V. Kumare and two others, which enables us to direct that they shall not perform functions as members of the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik or elsewhere and face disciplinary action. Let the needful be done and compliance report be placed before this court. 27. We direct that the inquiry be concluded as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 28. The certificate of validity shall be issued to the petitioner on or before 2nd August, 2018. It is for that limited purpose and to sign this certificate of validity that the members of the committee are permitted to discharge their official duty, but they shall not take up any further cases and the State must make alternate arrangement for dealing with the pending cases. It is entirely for the State Government to consider whether, in the larger interest of public and efficient administration so also for smooth conduct of the inquiry or disciplinary measures, these three persons, who are in Government service, should be suspended or otherwise. 29. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.