1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.114 OF 2011 (Shri Sanjay B. Raimulkar vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.2 and another) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : MARCH 15, 2011 Heard Shri Gandhi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sambre, learned Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, and Shri Haq, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. The petition is directed against the two orders dated 18/12/2010 passed by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby application made by the original complainant to cross-examine the Vigilance Cell's Officer as well as other witnesses came to be partly allowed and the application of the petitioner for supply of digital photographs (D-1 to 2 D-7) came to be rejected. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. Perusal of the impugned orders shows that permission to cross- examine the witnesses granted by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee is completely consistent with the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, 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 since the Caste Scrutiny Committee is vested with the powers of the Civil Court for issuing summons and recording evidence and, therefore, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the application submitted by the complainant, in our view, is sustainable in law. So far as application of the petitioner for grant of supply of digital photographs is concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is ready and willing to give inspection of those photographs to the petitioner and the Caste Scrutiny Committee has observed in the impugned 3 order that if petitioner wants, those photographs can be obtained by him from the handwriting expert. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj