1 RP-181-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 181 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2008 OF 2010 Ramchandra Changya Khamdekar ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. K. L. Koli for Petitioner. Mr. I. A. Patel – A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 08, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. Review petition is in respect of the Order dated 11th June 2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ petition no. 2008 of 2010 whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed and the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was held to be sustainable in law. 2 RP-181-10 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that in the said Order this Court has observed that the Vigilance Cell has brought on record an extract of school admission general register in respect of the review petitioner’s cousin uncle who was admitted in the school in the year 1951 and the caste recorded in the said document of the cousin uncle was “Hindu Koli Sonkoli”. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the said document was not genuine one and therefore the Caste Scrutiny Committee could not have placed reliance on the said document. We have asked the learned counsel whether this objection was raised by the review petitioner in the reply which was filed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the Police Vigilance Cell Report. The learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that though the said objection was not raised before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however the document which was not genuine could not have been relied on by the Caste Scrutiny Committee for invalidating the caste claim of the review petitioner. Similarly it is further contended that the aspect of affinity was also not properly considered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore finding recorded in the impugned Order in this regard also need review. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel 3 RP-181-10 for the review petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents and perused the impugned Order. Since it is not in dispute that the review petitioner did not raise objection in respect of the genuineness of the document pertaining to his cousin uncle before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, it is difficult for us to find fault with the finding recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in this regard in absence of such objection. Similarly, the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the basis of the material available on record came to the conclusion that the review petitioner failed to establish traits, characteristics, customs etc. of Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Caste. The Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration all these aspects dismissed the writ petition by upholding the Order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby the caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated. 5. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Review petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A. P. BHANGALE, J.)