FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders |Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO.785/2007 Shri A.S.Golegaonkar,Adv.for petitioner. Shri V.H.Dighe,AGP for State Shri P.S.Patil,Adv.for R.2. .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 21/4/2010. 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner claims to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli (Scheduled Tribe). On the basis of the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, he contested election to the Municipal Council, Omerga and got elected according to the learned counsel. The petitioner placed reliance on the school record, transfer certificate of Shri Chatrapati Shivaji College, Omerga, school leaving certificate, xerox copy of Urdu document. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had submitted material evidence in his favour having probative value to establish his claim towards Mahadeo Koli (S.T.). The committee did not appreciate the evidence led by the petitioner and resultantly committee erred in rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. 4] Counsel appearing for committee submitted that in vigilance cell enquiry adverse record against the petitioner was found. The petitioner failed to establish his claim by leading cogent and reliable evidence. 5] We have perused the documents placed on record and the order passed by the Committee, which is impugned herein. The vigilance cell had submitted a report, wherein it is pointed out that the relatives of the petitioner were referred as belonging to Hindu Koli. The school record of the petitioner also shows that he was referred as Hindu Koli. There is old record which is adverse to the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner failed to establish his affinity towards Koli Mahadeo (S.T.). 6] Considering the material and documents placed before the Committee, the claim put up by the petitioner was considered and the committee decided to invalidate the claim. We do not find any error in the view taken by the committee. Petition is dismissed. (N.D.DESHPANDE) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp785-07