1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2011 (Dharmesh K. Patel vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & P.D. KODE, JJ. JUNE 09, 2011. Heard Shri Karmarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sonare, learned AGP for respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has invalidated caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Kirat (NT - B) after noting that a sale deed executed in favour of Great Grand Father of present petitioner by name Dashrath Motiram, the caste mentioned is Kirad and caste Kirad is OBC while caste Kirat is NT. The contention before us is, the real brother of the petitioner by name Kamlesh and his cousin Priti are already given validity as belonging to Kirat (NT). This aspect is also looked into by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has specifically noted that the documents looked into while granting said validity were not pointed out to it by the petitioner. Even in present petition, the 2 petitioner has not pointed out documents then relied upon by the Committee while granting validity either to Kamlessh or to Priti. Before us, reliance is being placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Apoorva vs. D.C.C.S. Committee No. 1, reported at 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401, to urge that when one blood relative is granted validity, the brother or sister necessarily should be given validity. We have perused the said judgment and we find that this Court was required to interfere in the matter for reasons recorded by it in para 9 of that judgment. There the Committee disbelieved the case of the petitioner Apoorva as belonging to Kanjar Bhat community after noticing some interpolation in School Leaving Certificate. The Committee which earlier decided caste validity of the petitioner's sister had considered very same document and accepted it. Thus, this different approach in relation to the very same document and very same facts by subsequent Committee was not found proper by this Court. We, therefore, find that this judgment is not relevant for adjudication of present controversy. As we do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order, petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.