(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 2008 Indrajit Limbraj Koli, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Shastri Colony, Sai Road, Latur, Taluka & District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. 3. The Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4. The Superintendent, Land Records, Ahmadpur, District : Latur. 5. The Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Osmanabad, District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. (2) ....................... Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH FEBRUARY 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per A.P. Deshpande, J.) : 1. By this petition, filed in the year 2008, the legality and validity of an order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, dated 16th January 2004, is questioned. 2. The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe. In the process of verification of the tribe claim, the Committee had obtained report of the Vigilance Cell. Since beginning, the petitioner had participated in the proceedings before the Committee. Despite service of report of Vigilance Cell on the petitioner, the petitioner did not object to the same. Perusal of the report of the Vigilance Cell clearly (3) reveals that no school record of the petitioner's father and uncle was available despite verification of record for the period from 1950 onwards. 3. According to the petitioner, amongst the documents which were produced before the Committee, the oldest document was in relation to the petitioner himself, as neither the petitioner's father nor grandfather were literate. Thus, the primary school record of the petitioner assumes significance which is of the year 1968. An entry taken in the school record of the petitioner mentions the caste as "Hindu Koli". The documents placed on record by the petitioner and/or collected by the Vigilance Cell indicate that the entries are either in respect of "Hindu Koli" and some of the entries also indicate mention of caste as "Mahadeo Koli". The documents which indicate the caste (tribe) as "Mahadeo Koli" or "Hindu Koli" are of recent origin i.e. much after admission of the petitioner in primary school. After taking into consideration the documents placed on record and the report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee has found that the petitioner has utterly failed in establishing the affinity test and has also failed in establishing the claim on the basis of old documents having more probative value. 4. The petitioner has placed on record a school leaving (4) certificate purportedly issued on 17th December 2007 in respect of a student named Kondiba Yashwant Mane. According to the petitioner, this Kondiba Yashwant Mane is real uncle of the petitioner and in the caste column, caste is mentioned as "Koli Mahadeo". The submission is that the said document pertains to the year 1956 and the petitioner had come in possession of the document after the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has not explained in the petition, the circumstances in which the petitioner came in possession of the said documents, the point of time when the petitioner came in possession of the document and when the petitioner obtained the said document. 5. Perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee reveals that though the report of the Vigilance Cell was served on the petitioner, which clearly mentions that no school record of the petitioner's father and uncle is available despite verification of the record from the year 1950 onwards, the petitioner did not object to the said report. According to the report of the Vigilance Cell, the name of the uncle of the petitioner is "Kondiram", whereas the name of the student in the school leaving certificate dated 17-12-2007 which is for the first time placed on record of the Writ Petition, is mentioned as "Kondiba". As the petitioner has not filed a genealogy tree, either before the Scrutiny Committee or this Court, and in the (5) absence of proper explanation, connecting the said document with the present petitioner as belonging to his real uncle, we cannot accede to the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, for remand of the matter for a fresh inquiry. 6. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing by the Scrutiny Committee. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee has made available the original record of the proceedings, for our perusal. The order sheet of the Committee dated 9-1-2004 indicate that the matter was finally closed for decision on 9-1-2004 and the signature of the applicant appears on the order sheet, from which it can be gathered that the petitioner was present on the date of hearing. 7. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 8. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( A.P. DESHPANDE ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1190