1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4607 of 2008 [Mahadeo Kawaduji Kuttarmare Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. R.S. Parsodkar, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondent nos. 1, and 3 to 5. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Adv., for respondent no.2. Mr. Sheikh, Adv., for respondent no.6. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 02nd September, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Parsodkar for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. Doifode for respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 5, learned Adv. Mr. N.W. Sambre for respondent no.2 and learned Adv. Mr. Sheikh for respondent no.6. 2. A short grievance made by Adv. Mr. Parsodkar is that old documents showing caste of petitioner s ancestors recorded as Mana are 2 ignored by applying affinity test and also because of application for loan made by petitioner to a Co-operative Society in the year 1997. He states that the word Kunbi in that application was not written by petitioner, but by a clerk of the Society to which application for loan was submitted. He further states that this defence was specifically raised before Scrutiny Committee and Scrutiny Committee has rejected it only by observing that as petitioner has signed that application, such defence is not open. He also points out that though petitioner has passed only VIIth Std., the said application records that he has appeared for Xth Std., examination and failed. 3. Adv. Mr. Sambre supports the order, and states that since the application for loan made in the year 1997 shows the petitioner s caste as Kunbi , the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste claim. He further points out that affinity test has also been applied in the matter. 4. Adv. Mr. Sheikh for respondent no.6 is supporting the order and he states that though petitioner could have led evidence before Scrutiny Committee, no such evidence was led. 5. Learned AGP also supports the impugned order. 3 6. We find that in reply before Scrutiny Committee, petitioner specifically contended that though the application for loan was signed by him, the same was filled in by the Clerk of the Co-operative Society. He further pointed out that petitioner s educational qualification as disclosed therein is incorrect. In view of this material which is on record, merely because the application for loan was found to be signed by petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee could not have concluded that defence was not open to the petitioner. Similarly, it appears that the petitioner did not lead any positive evidence to bring on record affinity. 7. In these circumstances, we are inclined to grant petitioner an opportunity to lead positive evidence to prove his caste claim and for that purpose, the impugned order dated 29th September, 2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. If petitioner leads such evidence, the respondent no.6 [complainant before Scrutiny Committee] is free to cross-examine petitioner and his witnesses. 8. As the matter is old, the Scrutiny Committee shall decide the same as early as possible, and in any case by 31st July, 2010. The petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 5th October, 2009 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. Rule accordingly. No costs. 4 9. At this stage, learned Adv. Mr. Parsodkar states that interim order operating in the matter should be continued further till the Scrutiny Committee adjudicates the caste claim. 10. Adv. Mr. Sheikh is opposing the request. 11. However, as the interim order was already granted, we continue it till the Scrutiny Committee decides the caste claim. Judge Judge |Hedau|