1 914 wp 747.11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 747 OF 2011 Smt. Kamlabai Bhairu Bhosale ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Sarang S. Aradhye for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondents. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 25/01/2011. PC: 1 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 08.12.2010 holding that the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Nathpanthi Davari Gosavi community which is Other Backward Class is not valid. The learned counsel for the Petitioner raised three contentions before us. The first contention was that the Vigilance Cell report consisted of 427 pages but only 5 pages of that report were supplied to the Petitioner. The second submission is that State Vigilance Cell had recorded statements of two political rivals of the Petitioner who gave statement against the Petitioner. The Petitioner had applied for permission to cross- 2 914 wp 747.11.doc examine those two persons but the Scrutiny Committee did not permit the Petitioner to cross-examine those persons. The third and the last submission of the Petitioner is that the document submitted by the Petitioner, Petitioner has not been examined and considered by the Scrutiny Committee. 2 So far as the first submission is concerned, the Petitioner claims that the Vigilance Cell report consist of 427 pages because at the end of the report of the Vigilance Cell it is mentioned “total pages 1 to 427”. Though admittedly, copy of this report was served on the petitioner, before the Scrutiny Committee made the order, the petitioner has not made any grievance before the Scrutiny Committee that though the report of the Vigilance Cell consists of 427 pages, he has been given only five pages of that report. Had such a grievance been made before the Scrutiny committee, and if the grievance was correct the Scrutiny Committee would have supplied the entire report. It appears from the record that the report was only of five pages. There were annexures to this report which were the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell which were produced by them before the Committee, this position is clear from the report itself. The petitioner has at no point of time, requested the Committee to supply him copies of the documents. In our 3 914 wp 747.11.doc opinion, therefore, there is no substance in this submission. It is further pertinent to note that it appears that the petitioner had filed written submission after Vigilance Cell Report was served on him. There is no grievance made that he has not been supplied copies of the documents produced with the Vigilance Cell Report. It therefore, appears that the grievance of the petitioner is an after thought. 3 So far as the second submission is concerned, it is equally without substance because the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee shows that the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the caste claim not relying on any statement made by anybody but basically observing that the petitioner has not been able to discharge the burden of proof imposed on him to prove his caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee has held that the petitioner has not been able to produce any record of his father though he produced the record of a person who claims to be his uncle but he did not produce any genealogical tree to prove the fact that he is his uncle. The second submission therefore, in our opinion has no substance. 4 So far as the third submission is concerned, that is also equally devoid of any merit because it can be seen that all the 4 914 wp 747.11.doc documents submitted by the petitioner were considered but basically his caste claim was rejected because the petitioner was not in a position to produce the record relating to the caste entry in relation to his father. Taking over all view of the matter, therefore, we did not find any substance in the petition. 5 Petition is rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (K.K.Tated, J.)