SUNIL B.SHUKRE,J. - (1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
(2.) It is seen from the application filed by the petitioner that no relevant documents which he ought to have submitted, have been submitted by him to respondent-Scrutiny Committee. These documents are validity certificates issued to the real brother and two real paternal cousins of the petitioner which are respectively dated 1.2.2013, 25.6.2010 and 29.5.2010. However, the latest order dated 7 th August 2018 passed by the Committee discloses that the enquiry in the matter has been closed on the ground that the application is incomplete. It is stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2-Committee that the petitioner failed to furnish pre-1967 documents and some documents filed on record show that he belongs to the caste "Baniya" which caste does not find place in the list. The Committee, therefore, doubted the claim of the petitioner and after considering all the documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not belong to "Pardesi" OBC and this is how the Committee closed the proceedings. Even though all this is stated in the affidavit, the order dated 7.8.2018 does not reflect any of these reasons. It only says that the application is incomplete and is liable to be rejected for the reasons recorded. In the reply, however, the Committee has shown some leniency to the petitioner when it stated that if the petitioner re-submits relevant documents showing his caste as "Pardesi", the Committee would decide the claim of the petitioner on merit.
(3.) We have already stated that the validity certificates existing in the family of the petitioner are already before the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee would have to consider these documents and arrive at necessary conclusion by following the law consistently laid down by this Court in such cases.;