IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.534 OF 2009 Narayan Janu Pawar ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner Mr. N.P. Pandit, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Ms. Anjali Iyer i/by Mr. Vinod Singh for the respondent No.5. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 28TH JULY, 2009 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties at some length. This is the third time that the findings of the Scrutiny Committee are being challenged before this court. The contention raised is that the Scrutiny Committee has exceeded its jurisdiction and travelled into the facts which can be established only before the court of law. Thus, the order of the Committee is liable to be quashed. 2. We are not impressed by this contention at all. The Scrutiny Committee has expressed its doubts firstly in the order dated 29th September, 2008. Thereafter, in the report which was prepared by the concerned Vigilance Committee and then finally in the order impugned in the present writ petition dated 11th February, 2009. It needs to be noticed that in view of the earlier order of the committee, post-decision hearing was granted to the petitioner by the order of the court. Consequent thereto relevant documents produced have been considered. The authorities have come to the conclusion that the documents produced are fake or false documents and as such it is not possible for the committee to accept the contentions raised by the petitioner. 3. However, there are serious disputed questions of fact in the present case which would require oral and documentary evidence to substantiate the version put forth by the petitioner. Thus, we find that the issues raised by petitioner cannot be countenanced in this proceedings. Even for this reason, we dismiss the writ petition. 4. Keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in Sou. Kusum v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 109 (para 17), it will be open to the petitioner to take recourse to any other remedy, if permissible, in accordance with law concerning the issue of his parentage. All questions in the said proceedings will have to be considered on its own merits. Ordered accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.