1 913 wp662.11.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 662 OF 2011 Fakira Kathod Choudhari ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar & Mr. Kuldip T. Pawar 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 of the Scrutiny Committee holding that the claim of the respondent no.8 that he belongs to Agari, Other Backward Class caste is valid. Perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee shows that it has relied on birth extract of the father of the respondent no.8 which relates to the year 1935 showing that the caste recorded 2 913 wp662.11.doc is Agari. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner first submitted that the birth extract that was produced by the respondent no.1 was a manipulated document and in support of that he relied on extract of the birth register at Exhibit-E. The learned counsel also submitted that the Vigilance Cell did not make any personal enquiry but merely relied on the copies of the documents. He submitted that this enquiry was not made in consonance with the directions of the Supreme Court in a judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others, reported in (1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 241. 2 It is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another’s case that if the report of the Vigilance Cell is in favour of the Claimant and if the Scrutiny Committee finds no reason to take a view different from the one taken by the Vigilance Cell, then nothing more is required to be done by the Scrutiny Committee to hold that the claim is valid. In the present case, the Vigilance Cell report is in favour of the respondent no.8. We find that the document which relates to the year 1935 definitely shows that the caste of the grand father of the respondent is recorded as Agari in the year 1935. In these circumstances, considering the documentary 3 913 wp662.11.doc evidence and the report of the Vigilance Cell, in our opinion, no exception can be taken to the order impugned in the petition. 3 Petition is rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) (K.K.Tated, J.)