On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Committee was constituted as required by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also in accordance with the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, 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 and the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that only the Divisional Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner could have been appointed as a Chairman on the Committee and not the Joint Commissioner, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. The Divisional Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner or equally the Joint Commissioner could have been the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Committee. The constitution of the Committee, as we see, is clearly in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The judgment reported in 2010 (2) Mh.L.J. Page 384 cannot be applied to the facts of the present case as in that case the Chairman of the Committee was the Additional Collector and that was not in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2581 . Hence, we do not find any force in the submission of the petitioner that the Committee as constituted in this case, did not have jurisdiction to decide the tribe claim of the petitioner.
