1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5449 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5449 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5449 OF 2008 Rasik Devram Thalkar .. Petitioner vs. Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents None for the petitioner Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for the respondents CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 17, 2009 DATE: APRIL 17, 2009 DATE: APRIL 17, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Ld.A.G.P. for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 8.2.08 passed by the respondent Committee. It is the case of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadev Koli Schedule Tribe and respondent nos.4 has issued caste certificate dated 8.9.97 that the petitioner belongs to Mahadev Koli Schedule Tribe. The matter was referred to respondent nos.2 for verification. The Committee after scrutiny of the documents directed the Vigilance Cell to conduct 2 enquiry and submit the report. After receiving the said report of the Vigilance Cell, the Committee called upon the petitioner to appear before it for his claim. The Committee after hearing him and going through all the documents and after due consideration of the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell found that the petitioner does not belong to Mahadev Koli and therein invalidated the caste certificate of the petitioner which was issued on 8.9.97 by respondent nos.4 and the said caste certificate was cancelled and confiscated. Hence, this petition. 3. With the able assistance of the learned A.G.P. we went through the record and proceedings and impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 8.2.08. It appears from the record that the contentions of the petitioner that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not considered the documents submitted by the petitioner, especially the service book extracts of the applicant’s father was not appreciated in proper perspective, have no substance. In the order, Committee has mentioned and considered all the documents produced by the petitioner as well as obtained by the Vigilance Cell. The contention of the applicant that in the earlier 3 days, the record of the caste was not maintained meticulously, is found baseless. On the contrary in the past, the roots of the caste were specifically mentioned and the persons were identified on the basis of the caste in the society. Considering this earlier social fabric of the Indian Culture and the society, we are unable to accept this contention. 4. We also considered the genealogy submitted by the petitioner which discloses that 6 out of 8 relatives belong to Koli and not Mahadev Koli. It has to be mentioned that no explanation has come up from the petitioner as to how caste of the relative from the paternal side of the petitioner has been recorded as Koli and not Mahadev Koli. 5. Thus, the petitioner has failed to satisfy us on the point of affinity test. We find no error or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondent nos.2 Committee. Hence, petition stands dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 4 (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)