-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 161 OF 2009 Shrishail Shankar Koli ... Petitioner vs. The ST Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region and others ... Respondents Smt. Smita R. Kadu for the petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the respondents. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JULY 01, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune, by which the Committee has invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadeo Koli. The Committee has considered the report of the Vigilance Officer as well as other documentary evidence on record. Detailed reasons have been given by the Committee for coming to the said conclusion. In para 5 of the order, the Committee has considered documentary evidence on record. The Committee has rendered findings in respect of the school record of the petitioner’s father and his sisters. The Committee has also rendered findings in respect of the Births and Deaths Register as regards the birth entry of the petitioner’s father. The said entry was found to be in a different handwriting -2- than the earlier entries and in a different script namely Modi. The Committee has recorded that in the documentary evidence, on which reliance was placed, the entries were “Koli” or “Talwar Koli”. The petitioner was given full opportunity to deal with the enquiry report as well as granted a personal hearing. The Committee has recorded a conclusion that the petitioner belongs to non-tribal group and only with an ill intention to grab the concessions and facilities meant for genuine Scheduled Tribes by way of contesting the election from a reserved seat meant for ST, the petitioner tried to project himself as a person belonging to Mahadeo Koli. 2. In our view, the Committee has rightly invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner and found that the petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits of Mahadeo Koli-ST by giving cogent reasons. Learned counsel for the petitioner was also not in a position to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order of the Committee to warrant our interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Notice discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.