1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3939 OF 2009 Bhika Laxman Wagh, R/o. Amsari, Po. Shivna, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and others ....Respondents. Shri. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the State. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS, & R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 29th JUNE, 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the order passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee dated 22.5.2009, invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Malhar" schedule tribe. 2 2. The caste certificate of the petitioner that he belongs to "Koli Malhar" schedule tribe came to be referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for verification by the Collector, Aurangabad by communication dated 23.2.2007. It appears that the respondent Scrutiny Committee had earlier invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner by its order dated 11.6.2007. The Division Bench of this Court allowed the writ petition filed by the present petitioner and quashed and set aside the order impugned therein and remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh. The petitioner pursuant thereto appeared before the respondent Scrutiny Committee. 3. Mr. Bayas, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged before us that the Vigilance Cell did not conduct the home inquiry and consequently, the report of the Vigilance Officer stands vitiated. Reliance is, therefore, sought to be placed on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Shivaji Shankar Konkewad Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 943 and the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 995. It is also urged before us that merely because the caste of the some of the relatives has been recorded as "Koli" that itself would not affect on the claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Malhar" schedule tribe, in the light of the fact that the relatives of the petitioner have been granted validity certificates. For the said proposition, the reliance is placed on unreported judgment of this 3 Court dated 30th July 2008 rendered in Writ Petition No. 7417/2007, Madhav Nagnath Jatale Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. It is then urged before us that the revenue record which was referred to the hand writing expert has not been relied by the respondent Scrutiny Committee and the report of the hand writing expert was not provided to the petitioner so as to counter what was stated by the hand writing expert. Though specific ground in this behalf has not been raised in this writ petition, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of this ground also. We have heard Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, learned counsel representating the Scrutiny Committee and Shri. S.K. Kadam, learned A.G.P. representating the other respondents. 4. In the earlier round of litigation, this Court had quashed and set aside the order of respondent Scrutiny Committee and had remitted the matter to Scrutiny Committee for decision afresh. Firstly, assuming for the sake of argument that the Vigilance Cell did not conduct home inquiry, according to us, that by itself would not vitiate the order of respondent Scrutiny Committee. The aforesaid contention is disputed question of fact which this Court would examine the same in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Secondly, the primary/ basic document relating to the family of the petitioner shows that the caste of the brother of the petitioner was recorded as "Koli". This document is undisputedly the oldest school record pertaining to the petitioner's family. The real brother's caste came to be recorded way back in 1965 as 4 "Koli" and not as "Koli Malhar". The subsequent entries of the other relatives of the petitioners i.e. brother or sister wherein the caste is recorded as "Koli Malhar" would not in any manner whittle down the importance of the entry of the brother of the petitioner. No doubt, the other relatives of the petitioner have been granted validity certificate and assuming that, the petitioner has proved them tobe his blood relatives, but that by itself would not mean that the petitioner is entitled to be given the validity certificate. A party who approaches the Scrutiny Committee with a plea for verifying his caste status has to establish and prove his caste and the burden of doing so rests squarely on his own shoulders. Undoubtedly, the validity certificate granted to close relatives of a candidate assume great importance. The aforesaid documents are documents of great persuasive nature and are weighty pieces of evidence. But it would be hazardous to apply the rule that merely because a relative has been granted validity certificate, the other relatives should also be granted validity certificate. The Scrutiny Committee is entitled to evaluate all the documents produced by a candidate in support of his plea. In the present case, as pointed out by us, the certificate of the brother of petitioner clearly indicates that in his case caste was recorded as "Koli" and not as "Koli Malhar". This contra entry has been sought to be white washed on the specious plea that on account of illiteracy the aforesaid entry came to be recorded. No efforts have been taken till now by the brother of the petitioner to get the entry corrected. In the light of that therefor, the explanation proferred by the 5 petitioner appears to us to be an afterthought. 5. Even if, the revenue record is kept aside, the basic document i.e. the admission extract of the petitioner's brother clearly indicates that the petitioner has failed in discharging his burden that he belongs to "Koli Malhar" schedule tribe. 6. In the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court would be extremely cautious while disturbing the findings on fact recorded by the authority below in the absence of any perverse reasoning, Upon the perusal of the findings, no case is made out for issuance of writ of certiorari for upsetting the findings of the authority below. 7. After giving anxious consideration, according to us, there is no merit in this writ petition and therefore, the same is summarily dismissed. No order as to costs. [ R.K.DESHPANDE, J. ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J. ] ssc/wp3939.09