IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (1) Writ Petition No. 5419 of 2008 Minali D/o Raosaheb Kore ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents (2) Writ Petition No.5426 of 2008 Manisha D/o Uttamrao Kore ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents (3) Writ Petition No. 5427 of 2008 Anita D/o Jayawant Koli ...Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents (4) Writ Petition No.5430 of 2008 Gajendra s/o Uttamrao Kore ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents (5) Writ Petition No.5431 of 2008 Arun son of Raosaheb Kore ..Petitioners vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents .... Shri Y.S.Jahagirdar, Sr.Advocate i/b Shri S.S.Aradhye for petitioner in all petitions. Shri A.L.Patki, Spl. Counsel for respondent State in W.P.Nos.5419, 5427 and 5430 of 2008. Shri A.E.Deshmukh, Spl.Counsel for respondent State in W.P.No.5426 and 5431 of 2008. .... 1 CORAM: J.N.PATEL & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. DATE : 2nd December, 2008. P.C. 1. Rule. By consent rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These five petitions are filed by the petitioners who are all very closely related i.e. either they are siblings or first cousins of each other. By these petitions the petitioners are seeking to quash and set aside the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 20th March, 2007 and are further seeking a declaration that the petitioners belong to caste "Mahadev Koli” which is a Scheduled Tribe. Though all the impugned orders are separately given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, they are all dated 20th March, 2007 and all the relevant facts are common. The grounds of challenge are the same in all the petitions. All the said five petitions can, therefore, be disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5430 of 2008 had earlier filed Writ Petition No.6256 of 2005 before this Court seeking a direction to the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the caste claim of the petitioners within a 2 prescribed period. Accordingly, by order dated 22nd September, 2005 this Court had directed the Scrutiny Committee to dispose of the caste claim of the petitioners within a period of six weeks. 4. The office of the Scrutiny Committee by its letter dated 19th November, 2005 informed the Government Pleader, High Court, Mumbai that the Committee feels that in these cases a re-enquiry is essential and, therefore, the Committee has handed over the matter to the Vigilance Cell for re-Enquiry. The Vigilance Cell was required by the Committee to make a detailed enquiry and submit the report on the following points; (1) to submit primary and secondary school record of the petitioners' blood relatives i.e. father/uncle/grandfather etc. and (2) to submit the extract of birth and death register of the above mentioned relatives of the petitioners. Accordingly, the officer of the Vigilance Cell has submitted his detailed enquiry report to the Scrutiny Committee on 12th December,2005. The said report shows that the caste of the paternal grand father of the 3 petitioners who had sought admission in the school as early as on 15th March, 1932 was shown as Hindu Maratha. The caste of their cousin grand father as on 1st April, 1939 was also shown as Hindu Maratha. The caste of their grand father as on 1st April, 1936 was also shown as Hindu Maratha. The caste of cousin uncle as on 26th July, 1956 and 12th July, 1962 was shown as "Suryavanshi Koli" and "Hindu Maratha" respectively. The caste of the father of the two of the petitioners who is the uncle of other three petitioners as on 30th June, 1972 is shown as "Maratha (bek)". The caste of the cousin aunt and cousin grand fathers sister of the petitioners as on 2nd August, 1955 and 4th July, 1957 was shown as "Maratha" and "Hindu Maratha" respectively. The only person whose caste is shown as "Hindu Mahadev Koli" is the father of one of the petitioners and cousin uncle of the remaining four petitioners, who has taken admission in the school on 12th July, 1962 much after the Presidential order. As set out hereinafter the Caste Scrutiny Committee has found that in original general register the entry is "Koli" and the word "Mahadev" is written afterwards in different ink. 5. The Tahsildar, Miraj, District Sangli pursuant to a written query from the Viligance Officer, informed him that a birth entry of the year 1926 of the cousin grandfather of the petitioners is found wherein the caste shown is 4 "Maratha". 6. The Scrutiny Committee in its order recorded that from the point of natural justice, a copy of the re-enquiry report was sent to the petitioners by its letter dated 14th December, 2005 (by Regd.post A.D.) and asked the petitioners to submit his/her say on or before 30th December, 2005. The petitioners submitted their explanations on the enquiry report which finds place in paragraphs 6(A) of the impugned orders. The said replies are not only general in nature but contains statements which are contrary to the particulars/details given in the enquiry report of the Vigilance officer. 7. Since the petitioners raised objections in their respective submissions dated 13th December, 2005 the Committee has asked the Research Officer to conduct detailed enquiry about the genealogy of the petitioners and traits, characteristics, customs and traditions of Koli Mahadev match to the petitioners family. The Research Officer by his statement dated 7th September, 2006 submitted a report to the Committee in which it is inter alia set out that the petitioners grand father Shri Shamrao Shivappa Koli, aged 85 years has given information about his family and traits, characteristics of his community. After setting out the information given by the said grand father 5 of the petitioners, the Research Officer has specifically come to the conclusion that the petitioners traits, characteristics, traditional occupation do not relate to Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. 8. The petitioners were again given an opportunity of personal hearing on 15th February, 2006. However, the petitioners did not remain present for personal hearing. The petitioners were once again called for personal hearing on 19th April, 2006. However, the petitioners father/uncle Shri Raosaheb Shamrao Kore was present for personal hearing and he filled in the Sunawani Patrika. The petitioners were once again given an opportunity of personal hearing on 18th July, 2006 when, once again the petitioners father/uncle Shri Raosaheb Shamrao Kore remained present for personal hearing and he filled in the Sunawani Patrika. The petitioners were once again called for personal hearing on 22nd November, 2006 and separate copies of the Research Officer's report was also sent to them under separate covering letters dated 3rd November, 2006 (by Regd.Post A.D.) and the petitioners were asked to submit their say on the Research Officer's report on the date of personal hearing. On 22nd November, 2006 one of petitioners Gajendra Kore, brother/cousin of the other petitioners remained present with the petitioners Advocate and raised strong objection on the report of the Research 6 Officer . From the information given by the petitioners and his Counsel in the statement dated 6th June, 2005, the Scrutiny Committee came to the conclusion that the said Raosaheb Shamrao Kore, father/uncle of petitioners who repeatedly represented the petitioners during personal hearing was unaware of the traits, characteristics, customs and traditions of the Mahadev Koli Scheduled Tribe. 9. It is relevant to note that the Caste Scrutiny Committee in its order has also found that the entry at Sr.No.6 of Jaywantrao Ramchandra Kore Book No.375/4 in original general register is shown as "Koli" and the word "Mahadev" is written afterwards in different ink. In the school leaving certificate at the previous register No.923, the caste of Jaywantrao Ramchandra Kore is mentioned as "Hindu Suryavanshi Koli". It is pertinent to note that as recorded earlier the only case of the petitioners relatives whose school record shows the caste as "Hindu Mahadev Koli" is that of their father/cousin uncle. It is established that the said entry is forged and fabricated. It is, therefore, established from the detailed information obtained by the Vigilance Cell about the Primary and Secondary School record of the petitioner's blood relatives that the caste of none of the relatives is Mahadev Koli except the fabricated entry at Sr.No.6. This is contrary to 7 the documents which the petitioners have produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in support of their claim that they belong to the caste "Mahadev Koli." 10. It is also recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee from the point of view of the affinity test that though the petitioners have been given many opportunities of personal hearing it is the father/uncle of the petitioners who always attended the personal hearings and at the time of filing of the sunawani patrika he has given different information in each sunawani patrika on each occasion. It is also recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that from the statement of the petitioners' father/uncle it is clear that he is unaware of the sath, Waghbaras, Padkai. He has no knowledge about the traditional dress of the community that he belongs. The surnames which the petitioners father/uncle has stated as Sangitrao, Nehatrao, Vankore, Patil are not found in Mahadev Koli community. Koli Mahadev does not reside in the vicinity of Manjarde, Bisur, Shirthe, Abdulat, Chinchne, Kamewadi, Miraj, Sangli and Kolhapur The father/uncle of the petitioner has, therefore, miserably failed to prove the affinity towards Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the aforesaid material and evidence on record, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners do not 8 belong to caste Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, their claim towards the same is held invalid. The caste certificate issued was cancelled and confiscated. 11. Shri Jahagirdar, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners candidly submitted that except for making a submission, that the earlier vigilance order was in favour of the petitioners and there was no reason/need for a re-enquiry by the Viligance Officer, he has no other submission to make. The order of re-enquiry certainly cannot be faulted with. It cannot be disputed that the false and dishonest claim of the petitioners as stated aforesaid, got exposed only because of the re-enquiry by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. During the re-enquiry the petitioners were from time to time informed about what was happening and were given personal hearings. The submission, therefore, of Shri Jahagirdar is devoid of any merits and hence rejected. 12. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We, therefore, dismiss the petitions. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. 9 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners undertakes to file his vakalatnama in all the five petitions within one week. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.) 10