bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6551 OF 2009 Uday Vishwanath Koli ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.A.M.Joshi for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for respondent - State. CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 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 18th August, 2007 passed by respondent No.2 Scheduled Tribe’s Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region, Pune. 3. The petition appears to have been filed somewhere in the month of July, 2008. We were taken through the impugned order. The petitioner is claiming to be a person belonging to “Koli Mahadev” a Scheduled Tribe. He has relied upon certain documents which were taken into account by respondent No.2, wherein the petitioner’s ancestors were shown as “Koli”. The record reveals that the entry relating to the caste has been changed in the record from “Koli” to “Mahadevo Koli”. This fact is appreciated by the Tribunal in the following words: “Committee has taken into consideration the totality of the evidences placed before it, the record pertaining to applicant’s grandfather showing his caste recorded as “Koli”. Some latest manipulated record shows caste recorded as Hindu M. Koli, M.Koli and Mahadeo Koli. From all the totality of the records, it is clearly observed by the Committee that the caste entries have been changed from “Koli” to “M.Koli”, “M.Koli” to “Hindu M.Koli” and “Hindu M.Koli” to “Mahadeo Koli” day by day. All these attempts are nothing but only an ill intention to grab the concessions and facilities meant for genuine scheduled tribes.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Having seen the approach adopted by the petitioner to grab concession facility meant for genuine Scheduled Tribes, we do not think, this is a fit case for exercise of writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 5. Apart from the above, no fault can be found with the impugned order and the view taken therein. The entire oral as well as documentary evidence together with the police report has been considered and appreciated by respondent No.2 in the backdrop of the law laid down by this Court as well the Apex Court from time to time and has also applied affinity test keeping in view the principle laid down by the full bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 995. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no perversity in the impugned order could be demonstrated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This Court, not being a Court of appeal, is not expected to reappreciate the evidence, unless the perversity is demonstrated. In the result, the petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)