-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5451 OF 2009 Shanti Deu Bawalekar ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 08, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th January, 2009, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, respondent No. 2 herein, by which the Committee has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that she belongs to Thakar-Scheduled Tribe and accordingly after considering the evidence on record, the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Thakar-ST is invalidated by the said Committee. The aforesaid decision of respondent No.2 is impugned at the instance of the petitioner by way of this petition. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to Thakar-ST community and, therefore, the second respondent is required to validate the -2- certificate in her favour. The petitioner furnished various documents in support of her claim. The Committee, after considering the documents on record and after conducting an affinity test, found that the petitioner has failed to make out any case justifying her claim that she belongs to S.T. Community. 3 Mr. Mendadkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the Committee has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and misread the same. It is submitted by Mr. Mendadkar that from the evidence on record, it is required to be held that the petitioner belongs to Thakar-S.T. and the Committee has also not properly considered various documentary produced on record. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We have also gone through the documentary evidence produced along with the petition as well as additional bunch of documents produced at the time of hearing. 5. The principal question which is required to be decided is as to whether the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee suffers from any error of law or of jurisdiction which is required to be corrected by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is required to be noted that the Committee is required to consider various aspects -3- in order to find out whether the claim of the person is genuine or not. It is well settled position in law that the Committee is performing quasi-judicial function and it is the duty of the Committee to find out as to whether a certificate holder of SC/ST status really belongs to the community which the applicant is intended to be benefitted under the Presidential notification. The Committee has considered the aspects about traditional occupations, traits, characteristics, dances, dress habits, rituals, marriage and death ceremonies, etc. in order to find out as to whether the claim of the petitioner that she belongs to Thakar-ST is justified or not. In our view, the Tribunal has rightly found that the person belonging to Thakar caste ipso facto cannot be treated as a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The Committee relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court taking the view that a particular surname or caste itself is not a decisive factor and the Committee can take recourse to the affinity test and such recourse is legitimate. Considering the traditional occupation, traits, etc. the Committee has found that the petitioner does not belong to Thakar-ST as enumerated at Sr. No.44 in the Presidential Order. After a detailed examination of the evidence on record, the Committee has reached the said conclusion. In the affinity test it has also been found that the petitioner’s mother tongue is Marathi. In the said test, the mother of the petitioner has not stated about the holi festival, which is one of the important rituals of the Scheduled Tribe in the area. -4- 6. Considering the evidence on record relied upon by the petitioner as well as the evidence adduced by the petitioner especially that of her mother, in our view, the Committee has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish her caste claim. It cannot be said that the Committee has committed any error of law or error of jurisdiction or misread the evidence in any manner. This Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the evidence. Suffice it to say that the Committee after considering the evidence on record and other aspects of the matter has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish her caste claim. In our view, this is not a fit case in which this Court would like to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order which is otherwise also said to be a well reasoned order. In the affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Ashok D. Patare, Research Officer, office of the Joint Commissioner-cum-Vice Chairman, S.T. Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, the claim of the petitioner is denied and it is pointed out that on the basis of evidence which was led by the petitioner, the Committee on proper and full appreciation of evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to establish any affinity towards S.T. Tribe “Thakar” as enumerated at Sr. No.44 of the Presidential order for the State of Maharashtra promulgated Article 342 of the Constitution of India. -5- 7. Since we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Committee, this petition is required to be rejected. Hence it is rejected. Notice discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.