1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5422/2004 (Ku.Kalpana Ganpatrao Pawanarkar VERSUS State of Mah. Thro. Secretary, Tribal Devlp. Mumbai & 2 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. S.R. Narnaware, counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-1. Mr. P.B. Patil, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 8, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to the Halba Scheduled Tribe came to be invalidated. Considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order passed. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the following documents were considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 1) Document of Ganpati Laxman Pawnarkar (applicant's father) dated 2 28.07.1951, pertains to Primary School at Seloo, caste mentioned is Koshti. 2) Document of Kamla Laxman Pawnarkar (applicant's aunt) of the year 1953 i.e. extract of the School record, caste mentioned is Koshti. 3) Document of Jai Laxman Pawnarkar (applicant's aunt) i.e. Primary School record dated 03.07.1944, caste mentioned is Koshti. All these documents being old have more probative value than other documents, and therefore, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has rightly concluded that petitioner failed to establish that he belongs to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The contention of the petitioner that he wanted to place on record the documents pertaining to his grandfather on the record of Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not allow him to do so. There is no reason for the Caste Scrutiny Committee for not permitting the petitioner to place on record the documents of his grandfather when the petitioner was permitted to place so many other documents in support of his caste 3 claim. Hence, his contention cannot be accepted. Consequently, the petition suffers from lack of merit, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE