1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2039 OF 2009 Vijay s/o Bandu Chandol, R/o-Karlawadi Anwa, Tq-Bhokardan, Dist-Jalna ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) The Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, 3) The Collector, Jalna, Dist-Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.V.B.Garud Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr.P.S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Petition takes exception to the order passed by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad dated 30th December, 2008 invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to "Koli-Malhar", Scheduled Tribe. 3. The first grievance of the Petitioner is that sufficient opportunity was not given to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, he had appeared before the Committee on 12th November, 2008 and asked for time to file documents in support of his caste claim. However, the Committee proceeded to decide the matter without giving fair opportunity to the Petitioner. 4. From the record we find that the Vigilance Cell report was issued to the Petitioner on 4th 3 October, 2008 for submission of his say. However, the Petitioner failed to avail of that option until 12th November, 2008 when the matter was listed for hearing. Indeed, on 12th November, 2008 the Petitioner filed application for further time to place the relevant documents on record. The hearing of the matter was deferred till 12th December, 2008. On that day, however, the Petitioner remained absent nor did the Petitioner produced any document on record or filed his say. It is in this back ground, the Committee proceeded to consider the material which was already on record, after submission of the enquiry report by the Vigilance Cell. On analyzing the said material, the Committee found as of fact that the Petitioner was unable to substantiate the fact that he belongs to "Koli Malhar". 5. The question is whether sufficient opportunity was given to the Petitioner or not. We have no hesitation in taking the view that ample opportunity was given to the Petitioner but for 4 the reasons best known to him the Petitioner neither chose to file the documents in the context of the Vigilance Cell report which was served on him, nor availed the opportunity which was given to him on 12th November, 2008. Significantly, the Petitioner did not bother to appear before the Committee at the time of hearing on 12th December, 2008. 6. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he was not aware about the said date of hearing. In any case, the Committee has found that the Petitioner was expected to appear for personal hearing on 12th December, 2008. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that finding. In other words, it is the Petitioner who is responsible for the situation and inspite of sufficient opportunity available, failed to avail the same. It is too late in the day for the Petitioner to make grievance that fair opportunity was not given to him. 5 7. According to the Petitioner he has recently come across certain documents pertaining to the blood relation of the Petitioner which would indicate that their caste has been noted as "Malhar Koli" in the school record. Besides, validity certificate has been issued in favour of Kautik Kondiba Suradkar. However, the said Kautik Kondiba Suradkar cannot be said to be blood relation of the Petitioner. He is the son of the Petitioner's father's sister (aunt). The certificate in his favour is obviously in the context of the caste of his father Kondiba Suradkar, who cannot be considered as blood relation of the Petitioner. 8. Insofar as documents at page 22 to 30 are concerned, it is noticed that all these documents are obtained on one date i.e. 14th February, 2009. No reason is forthcoming as to what prevented the Petitioner to place these documents on record well in time before the Committee when his case was considered. We are in agreement with the 6 submission made by the counsel for the Respondent Committee that the whole attempt was to protract the proceedings and to enjoy the office of the Sarpanch occupied by the Petitioner which was reserved for Scheduled Tribe category. We find no merits in the grievance made before us, especially in view of the findings of the fact noted by the Committee that the documents pertaining to the blood relatives of the Petitioner himself mentioned that he belongs to "Koli", Special Backward Class and not "Malhar Koli", which is Scheduled Tribe. Hence Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/FEB10/wp2039.09