1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6315/2006 ( Rajesh Ramdas Banne . . .vrs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny... and another ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : JULY 22, 2009. Heard Shri A.S. Kilor, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel for respondent no.1 and Mrs. U.A.Patil, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Caste claim of petitioner as belonging to “Mannewar” has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee and that order has been challenged before us, with contentions that out of total 23 documents filed by the petitioner, only two of them have been considered and hence the application of mind by the Scrutiny Committee stands vitiated. Reliance is placed on judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported at AIR 1996 SC 1338 (Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others). It is further stated that affinity test has also been wrongly applied and by placing reliance upon statements of two Aunts of petitioner, it has been held that affinity test has not been satisfied. 2 The learned Counsel appearing for respective respondents, however, urge that in old document i.e. prior to Independence, caste has been found to be recorded as “Telanga, Telangi Mannerwar” and in all subsequent documents which pertains to petitioner, his caste has only been recorded as Mannewar. The old document therefore, have been given importance. It is further stated that because of identical names of tribes, the affinity test has also been applied and the paternal aunts of petitioner disclosed about anthropological history and traits, and those traits, customs do not satisfy the requirement. After hearing the parties, we are satisfied that no case is being made out warranting any interference with the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has not alleged any hostility with his paternal aunts and petitioner has also not alleged that the caste Telangi or Telangi Mannewar and caste Mannewar are one and the same. The Scrutiny Committee has relied upon the document dated 30.10.1936, where caste has been recorded as Telangi Mannewar and abstract register wherein caste of one Ram Ballaiya Banni has been recorded as Telangi. This reliance has not been stated to be either erroneous or perverse. On record there is earlier order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 16.02.2004, wherein about 15 documents have been looked into and all those documents are for period after 1967 and mostly in relation to the petitioner or then his relatives. In that order, the Scrutiny Committee has 3 mentioned date on which the document has been issued and in some of the documents caste has not been recorded. The Scrutiny Committee has thus considered the old documents and also has applied affinity test. The Vigilance Report was duly served upon the petitioner. Said report also mentions that his culture and anthropological traits do not match with Mannewar tribe. After this, opportunity was given to the petitioner, Scrutiny Committee has recorded its finding. There is no grievance before us about violation of principles of natural justice. In these circumstances, reliance upon the above referred judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is misconceived. No case is made out by the petitioner. Writ Petition is thus dismissed. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.