JUDGMENT V.G.BISHT, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this court with following prayer : "That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ thereby calling for the records which led to the passing of the impugned order bearing no. DCCSC Sangli/Order/ 2019-20/149 dated 4th January, 2020 from the files of Respondent No.2 and after examining the validity and propriety thereof, be pleased to quash and set aside the same." 3. The mother of petitioners had filed two applications along with necessary documents under Section 3 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 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before respondent no.3 for issuance of Caste Certificates in favour of the petitioners. However, respondent No.3 refused to decide the aforesaid applications by giving perverse and erroneous reasons. According to the petitioners, aggrieved by the orders passed by respondent No.3, the petitioners preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 under Section 5 of the Act. But instead of simply examining whether there was sufficient prima facie material produced before respondent No.3 to enable it to issue a Caste Certificate, the Appellate Authority directed the Vigilance Cell to conduct an enquiry into the case and after hearing the parties, passed impugned order on 4th January, 2020 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. 4. Respondent No.2 by way of his affidavit in reply submitted that he followed the procedure in accordance with Section 5 (2) of the Act and as the petitioners had failed to prove their caste claim according to Section 8 of the Act, therefore the appeal was dismissed. There being no merits in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, urged respondent No.2. 5. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, raised preliminary objection in respect of the approach adopted by respondent No.2 while disposing of the appeal. There being no merits in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, urged respondent No.2. 5. Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, raised preliminary objection in respect of the approach adopted by respondent No.2 while disposing of the appeal. According to learned Counsel, at the very first instance, respondent No.3 committed grave jurisdictional error by not examining the case of petitioners on merits and rather under the guise of pending Scrutiny Committee Enquiry pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3425 of 2015 refused to exercise the jurisdiction. In fact, the petitioners' case and the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3425 of 2015 are entirely different and therefore, respondent No.3 ought to have exercised his jurisdiction under Section 3 of the Act. 6. The learned Counsel then assailed the impugned order of respondent No.2 which was passed in the appeal pursuant to the grievances raised by petitioners against the order dated 17th July, 2019 whereby the applications under Section 3 of the Act were rejected by respondent No.3. 7. According to learned Counsel, instead of examining the order of respondent No.3 in proper perspective and whether there has been sufficient material on record or not produced by petitioners, respondent No.2 ought to have set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 and have remanded the matter back to respondent No.3 for deciding the same in accordance with law. 8. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, vehemently opposed the submission by justifying the impugned order and then submitted that the petitioners' appeal rightly came to be rejected as the petitioners had failed to produce the document of Mahar Caste to prove their caste claim. Since the petitioners had failed to discharge the burden as contemplated under Section 8 of the Act, the appeal rightly came to be dismissed, argued learned AGP. 9. We have carefully gone through the record with the assistance of learned Counsel and AGP. Ex-facie we are of the prima-facie view that respondent No.3, namely, Sub-Divisional Officer failed to exercise the jurisdiction in consonance with the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners had moved applications under Section 3 of the Act. 10. Ex-facie we are of the prima-facie view that respondent No.3, namely, Sub-Divisional Officer failed to exercise the jurisdiction in consonance with the provisions of the Act. There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioners had moved applications under Section 3 of the Act. 10. Section 4 of the Act provides that, "The Competent Authority may, on an application made to it under Section 3, after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim and following the procedure as prescribed, issue a caste certificate within such time limit and in such form as may be prescribed or reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing" 11. We are aghast to note that there was total failure on the part of respondent No.3 to exercise its jurisdiction in letter and spirit. 12. We have also carefully perused the order dated 17th July, 2019 passed by respondent No.3 and we are at a loss to understand how the case of the petitioners and the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3425 of 2015 by this Court (Coram: B.R. Gavai and N.J. Jamadar, JJ.) had similarity. The order in the said Writ Petition was passed on the basis of entirely different set of facts and therefore, there was no reason much less the satisfactory reason for respondent No.3 to wait the outcome of the Scrutiny Committee pursuant to the direction given in the said Writ Petition by this Court. 13. What was expected of respondent No.3 was to examine the case of petitioners on the basis of material placed before him by them and then after satisfying itself about the genuineness of the claim, he could have issued or rejected the applications. Unfortunately, that was not done. 14. It is also disturbing to note that when the matter was taken into appeal under Section 5 of the Act before respondent No.2, respondent No.2 ventured and misdirected itself and ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Vigilance Cell. It appears that respondent No.2 also overlooked the fact that respondent No.3 had not decided the applications of petitioners in accordance and requirement with Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No.2 ought to have given a serious thought and consideration to the case of the petitioners and as also the nature of order passed by the Competent Authority. It appears that respondent No.2 also overlooked the fact that respondent No.3 had not decided the applications of petitioners in accordance and requirement with Section 4 of the Act. Respondent No.2 ought to have given a serious thought and consideration to the case of the petitioners and as also the nature of order passed by the Competent Authority. But respondent No.2 also lost sight of fact and perpetuated the illegality by taking unto himself and went on to conduct an in-depth enquiry. 15. The very foundation of the appeal was the illegal and perverse order which could not have been a go-bye by respondent No.2 and could not have converted the appeal into a full-fledged adjudication of the caste claim of the petitioners. 16. There being apparent jurisdictional error in not exercising the jurisdiction by respondent No.3, we are satisfied that the present matter deserves to be remanded back to respondent No.3 for its adjudication in consonance and requirement with Section 4 of the Act. 17. We propose to direct respondent No.3, namely, Sub Divisional Officer, Miraj to look into the documents and relevant material produced by the petitioners before him and additional documents which may be produced before it. If the said documents make out a strong prima -facie case in support of the caste claim of the petitioners, respondent No.3 will have to allow the applications in compliance with Section 4 of the Act. 18. We, accordingly, pass the following order: ORDER (a) The impugned order dated 4th January, 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside; (b) Applications (Two) of the petitioners upon which the orders dated 17th July, 2019 bearing Nos. MAG/ Scheduled Caste Certificate/ 1853/19 and MAG/ Scheduled Caste Certificate/ 1857/19 came to be passed stand restored to the file of respondent No.3- Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-Division Office, Miraj; (c) We direct the petitioners to appear before respondent No.3 on 8th March, 2021 at 11.00 a.m.; (d) Respondent No.3 shall decide the above said applications afresh in the light of the observations and directions issued in this judgment and order; (e) Appropriate order shall be passed by respondent No.3 within a period of two months from 8th March, 2021; (f) Writ Petition is disposed of on above terms. (g) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.