bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5232 OF 2009 Pawankumar Gopal Thakur & Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATED :- 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 (At 2.35 in Chamber) P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for respondent- State. Perused petition. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 28th April, 2009 whereby the tribe claim of the petitioner has been rejected. 3. We were taken through the impugned order and the documents sought to be relied upon by the petitioner to substantiate his claim that he belongs to a “Thakar Tribe” recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Maharashtra. 4. The impugned order reveals that respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee has taken taken into consideration the law laid down by this Court, considered the documents relied upon by the petitioner including the Vigilance Report and submissions made in support of the tribe claim. The Scrutiny Committee has also taken into account the “traditional occupations, traits so as to apply affinity test to investigate the claim made by the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee, on ultimate analysis, has rejected the claim setup by the petitioner. 5. The following two questions were sought to be raised by the petitioner in the petition. a) Whether respondent No.2 erred in invalidating claim of the petitioner, solely on the ground of affinity test, which goes against the recent judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court on 7th May, 2009 ? b) Whether respondent No.2 Committee erred in not considering the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence produced by the petitioner having ancient vintage,in its proper perspective ? 6. So far as first question sought to be raised is concerned, the same is nothing but a misleading statement which is clear from the fact that the present petition was prepared on 11th June, 2009, which is clear from the affirmation clause. The same appears to have been lodged on 16th June, 2009. A full bench judgment was delivered by this Court on 7th May, 2009 to which one of us (Daga,J.) is party, wherein, Mr.Mendadkar had appeared and argued as one of the main Advocates appearing in the matter. In the said full bench judgment, it has been held “that the nature of the inquiry in regard to the claim of a candidate to belong to a Scheduled Tribe is not merely to be confined to an examination of the birth and the school records and of documentary evidence but would involve an investigation of the affinity of the candidate with a tribe, or as the case may be, tribal community.” In spite of the clear law laid down by the full Bench of this Court, which is well within the knowledge of Mr.Mandadkar, Advocate, a bold statement is made in the petition that the application of affinity test is contrary to the recent judgment rendered by the full bench on 7th May, 2009. This is nothing but an attempt to twist the judgment of the full bench to mislead the Court hearing writ petition. The said ground, thus, does not hold water. 7. So far as second contention sought to be raised is concerned, it is clearly in the domain of appreciation of evidence with which no fault can be found. The view taken by the Scrutiny Committee is a reasonable and possible view. No perversity could be demonstrated by the petitioner in the petition. In the result, the petition being without substance, it is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)