Ladda 1 wp-3097-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 3097 of 2011. Sanita Balkrishna Chogale ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors ...Respondents. ...... Mr R.K. Mendadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs M. P.Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: D.D. SINHA AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED:- 6th June, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present writ petition is directed against the order dated 8th May, 2010 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutnity Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli (Scheduled Tribe) came to be invalidated. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Ladda 2 wp-3097-11.doc counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Committee has taken into consideration the document i.e. school leaving certificate pertaining to the father of the petitioner, namely, Balkrishna Sitaram Chogle wherein the caste mentioned is Koli. Similarly, the document pertains to cousin uncle of the petitioner, namely, Balkrashna Yashvant Chogle, the caste mentioned therein is "Koli" (Hindu). The Caste Scrutiny Committee has also applied the affinity test and found that neither the petitioner nor the members of his family could establish affinity with Mahadev Koli caste. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner married to one Vikas Gopal Patil who belong to Dongar Koli (Scheduled Tribe). It is contended that since the petitioner married to the person belonging to Scheduled Tribe community, her caste after marriage should have been treated to be Dongar Koli. 5. However, the Committee failed to take into consideration this aspect of the issue and also failed to give reasons in the impugned order, why this contention was rejected by the Committee. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order, in the circumstances, is unsustainable in law. 6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, Ladda 3 wp-3097-11.doc supported the impugned order. 7. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective parties and perused the impugned order passed. Following facts are not in dispute. 8. The petitioner was issued certificate by the Competent Authority declaring her to be a member of Mahadev Koli (Scheduled Tribe). The certificate was forwarded to the concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. The evidence produced by the petitioner before the Committee, particularly, the documents pertaining to the father and cousin uncle of the petitioner clearly show that they belong to Koli community and not Mahadev Koli. Similarly, the affinity test was applied by the Committee and noticed that neither the petitioner nor her family members could establish affinity with Mahadev Koli community. It is, in these circumstances, the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and, therefore, in our view the order is just and proper and is also sustainable in law. 9. So far as the issue about petitioner getting married to the person belonging to Dongar Koli community is concerned, there was no occasion for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider this aspect of the matter since the caste certificate which was under scrutiny of the Committee issued by the Competent Authority in favour of the Ladda 4 wp-3097-11.doc petitioner, declared the petitioner belonging to Mahadev Koli community and, therefore, the power and jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was only to examine whether the petitioner has produced the evidence adequate enough to hold that the certificate issued by the Competent Authority was just and proper. It is, in these circumstances, we keep this issue open. However, the impugned order cannot be held to be bad in law on this count. 10. Petition suffers for want of merit. Same is dismised. (D.D. SINHA,J) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)