1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3049 OF 2010 Sayed Jainatbee Nawabsaheb .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri A. S. Bayas, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : . This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner takes exception to the order of the respondent/Scrutiny Committee dated 16.02.2010 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Momin caste. 2. The petitioner herself had submitted her caste certificate for scrutiny by her application dated 08.10.2008. The caste claim of the petitioner came to be referred by the Collector, Nanded. 2 3. The petitioner in support of her claim as belonging to Momin caste tendered as many as 10 documents. The 01 document was a certificate issued by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded dated 03.10.2005 to the petitioner herself. The document No. 2 was the affidavit of the petitioner while document No. 3 was the primary school admission register extract of real brother of the petitioner which is dated 23.07.1960. In the said extract no caste is recorded. The 4th, 6th and 7th documents are the certificates issued to the grand children of the petitioner, while the 5th document is the primary school admission register extract pertaining to the son of the petitioner. The document at No. 8 is a siyanama i. e. certificate of marriage evidencing the marriage between the petitioner and her husband. While the document No. 9 is an affidavit of the petitioner and document No. 10 is the revenue extract relating to the father in law of the petitioner. The committee in its order, which is annexed to the petition, has recorded that despite frequent letters being issued to the petitioner for personally remaining present for hearing the petitioner did not attend. It appears that son of the petitioner appeared before the Committee and the committee had heard him on 08.07.2009. The committee therefore had issued a show 3 cause notice to the petitioner as to why her caste certificate as belonging to Momin caste (Other Backward Class) should not be invalidated. The committee also enclosed the copy of the enquiry report of the vigilance cell. The petitioner chose not to file any reply either to the show cause notice or to the report of the vigilance cell. The committee has curiously evaluated each and every document and has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has utterly failed in establishing that she belongs to Momin caste. In respect of document No. 8 which is the certificate of marriage, the committee has observed that this was a urdu document and the petitioner has neither provided an authorized translation of the document nor had petitioner produced the original document. 4. Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the committee has not considered the report of the vigilance cell and that the order of the respondent No. 2/Scrutiny Committee is vitiated on account of non consideration of the marriage certificate on the specious belief that the petitioner had not produced original document. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Committee has urged before us that the 4 petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and the show cause notice clearly indicated to the petitioner that the committee was not satisfied with the said document and, therefore, it was for the petitioner to have either place additional documents or ought to have produced the original along with the translation of the marriage certificate. The petitioner had not attended the hearing of the proceeding for a single occasion. 5. We have perused the said document No. 8 which is the marriage certificate. A translation has been made available to us and is annexed to the writ petition. In the column relating to the caste the word "Musalman" is recorded while after the name of the father of the petitioner word momin appears in bracket. In any event this is not a document which would unerringly establish that the petitioner belongs to Momin caste. We therefore, cannot fault the committee in respect of the appreciation of the documents. 6. Turning to second contention of the petitioner that the committee has not considered the report of the vigilance cell, according to us the said report is a completely innocuous document, as said report states that after home enquiry and 5 other enquiry it transpires that the petitioner is known in the community as belonging to Momin caste. Such information was provided by the Hindus and Muslims residing in the said locality. The caste of the petitioner obviously cannot be established solely on the basis of the report of the vigilance cell. 7. A candidate whose caste claim is subject to scrutiny, the scrutiny committee is not responsible to establish that he or she belongs to the caste to which the claim is made. The burden squarely rests upon such individual and the petitioner has failed to discharge the said burden by producing such material as would unerringly establish that the petitioner belongs to Momin caste. 8. Upon hearing learned counsel for parties, according to us there is no merit in this petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, this petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10