JUDGMENT : Sunil B. Shukre, J. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a case wherein a caste claim of the petitioner has been refused under Sections 3 and 4 of 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 2000 read with Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 (in short referred to as "Act, 2000 & Rules 2003"). 3. The petitioner belongs to a distressed family headed by a single mother. The petitioner's mother got married to one Prashant Sakharam Ambre, the father of the petitioner on 8th August, 1996. Petitioner was born during the wedlock on 21st July, 1997. Soon thereafter there were serious differences between the father and the mother of the petitioner and they culminated into dissolution of marriage in the year 2003. Well before that, the petitioner had left her matrimonial house and she had started residing in her parental house. In the year 2003, there was a Court's order whereby custody of the petitioner, a small girl of about 6 years then, was granted to the mother. Since then, the petitioner has been looked after and raised and educated by her mother in the background provided by her parental community. The petitioner had no concern with her biological father for all these years. Practically, the petitioner inculcated the values, practices, customs and traditions of the community to which her mother belonged. The mother of the petitioner, is a tribal woman belonging to "Halba" Schedule Tribes, and she married Prashant, a non-tribal, belonging to "Nhavi" caste. But, this marriage was soon dissolved and apparently it had no cultural impact whatsoever on the petitioner in the sense that it did not result in the petitioner getting values, customs and practices of the community to which her father belonged. Rather, the petitioner was raised in an atmosphere dominated by the customs and traditions of the community to which her mother belonged. 4. It was, therefore, natural for the petitioner to start claiming the social status which was professed by her mother and that was of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. Rather, the petitioner was raised in an atmosphere dominated by the customs and traditions of the community to which her mother belonged. 4. It was, therefore, natural for the petitioner to start claiming the social status which was professed by her mother and that was of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. In due course, an occasion arose for the petitioner to declare to the world her social status as that of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe and with that view in mind, the petitioner made an application under Section 3 of the Act 2000 before the Sub Divisional Officer (Respondent no.2) for issuance of the caste certificate disclosing her status to be as that of "Halba" Scheduled Tribe. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the documents submitted before an authority like respondent no.2 were from her mother's side. Unfortunately, respondent no.2, in spite of such a background as narrated above, for which sufficient documentary evidence, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was also made available for consideration, continued to harp upon the documentary evidence from the paternal side. Of course, if we consider the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules 2003, apparently nothing wrong in such an approach could be found. But when we look at the case from a different prospective, which is provided to us in ample measure by the background of a distressed family led by single mother of the petitioner, we would be convinced that this case requires different approach. In our such view, we are supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors of Civil Appeal No. 654 of 2012. The respondent no.2, however, minutely dissected the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra) and relying upon those observations, which he found to be useful for reaching a conclusion in his own way, rejected the application of the petitioner. Such an approach of respondent no.2 has been endorsed to by the respondent no.1- Scrutiny Committee when it confirmed his order. Thus, both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner before us. 6. Such an approach of respondent no.2 has been endorsed to by the respondent no.1- Scrutiny Committee when it confirmed his order. Thus, both these orders have been challenged by the petitioner before us. 6. On going through the impugned orders, we find that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have not only adopted a fundamentally flawed approach in the present case but have also gone into the merits of the claim which was not permissible. They have taken upon themselves the task of examining the validity of the social status as claimed by the petitioner. There is a difference between the powers conferred upon the authorities under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act 2000. Section 4 of the Act 2000 empowers issuance of caste or tribe certificate in pursuance of the application made under Section 3 of the Act 2003. While under section 6 of the Act 2000, power is in respect of verification of caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee so that validity can be accorded or rejected to the caste certificate, as the case may be. Power under Section 6 of the Act 2000 comes later and it requires the Scrutiny Committee to examine the social status claim, not only on the basis of various documents produced before it by the claimant but also by embarking upon the inquiry through the vigilance cell attached to it. The Scrutiny Committee is also required to be conscious of various parameters and legal tests to be applied while exercising its powers under Section 6 of the Act 2000. However, such is not the case when it comes to exercise of any power under Section 4 of the Act 2000. There is no need of having any report from the vigilance cell and there is also no need of the authority to minutely consider the claim for its validity and it is required only to decide the application on the basis of requisite documents, by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of Rules 2003. It would then mean that on the basis of the documents produced before the authority, if it is seen that the claim is substantially supported, there would be no reason for the authority to refuse to issue the certificate of caste or tribe, as the case may be. The authority is not permitted to enter into the arena of validity or otherwise of the claim. The authority is not permitted to enter into the arena of validity or otherwise of the claim. This has also been clarified by another Bench of this Court in the case of Namdeo S/o Baburao Ingale and others Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others, (2015) 2 MhLJ 707 . 7. What we find from the impugned orders is something that completely against the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid case of Namdeo S/o Baburao Ingale and others Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati and others (supra). The authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction in entering the field of caste or tribe verification by examining the claim from the view point of its validity or otherwise. Then, the authorities have also ignored the law laid down by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra) which prescribes that in a given case it is permissible for a candidate or a student to claim the caste or tribe of one of her parents when the marriage is between the non-tribal and tribal or open category spouse and reserved category spouse. All that it is required to be done by the concerned authority, in such a case, is to consider the genuineness of the claim on the basis of documents submitted to it and nothing more. If Rule 12 of Rules 2003 does not permit a candidate to produce the documents of the maternal side, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (supra), such permission would have to be granted to the petitioner by this Court. Accordingly, we are inclined to allow the petition. ORDER i. Petition stands allowed. ii. Impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside. iii. The matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 Sub Divisional Officer for reconsideration of the application filed before him for issuance of caste certificate, in accordance with law. The respondent no.2 shall consider all documents already submitted by the petitioner along with application which may also be from the side of her mother and shall permit the petitioner to file before him the additional documents, if any, and if they are filed they too shall be considered by the respondent no.2, in accordance with law. iv. The respondent no.2 shall consider all documents already submitted by the petitioner along with application which may also be from the side of her mother and shall permit the petitioner to file before him the additional documents, if any, and if they are filed they too shall be considered by the respondent no.2, in accordance with law. iv. The decision shall be rendered within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order by the respondent no.2. v. Copy of the order be sent to the respondent no.2. vi. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.