1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 2008 Shri Conceicao Dias House No.506, Fondegal, Curtorim, Salcete-Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. State of Goa through its Chief Secretary, having its office at Secretariat, Porvorim-Goa. 2. The Scrutiny Committee for verification of caste certificate of Scheduled Tribes, C/o office of the Secretary, Social Welfare, Secretariat at Porvorim-Goa. 3. Deputy Collector and SDO, having office at Collectorate Building, Margao Goa. 4. Caetano C. Hilario R/o Camerxett-Curtorim, Salcete Goa. ... Respondents Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Winnie Coutinho, Government Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni and Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocates for the Respondent No.4. 2 CORAM : R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.:- Heard. The Petitioner challenges the Order dated 29-1-2008 passed by Respondent No.2 whereby the Petitioner's tribe claim has been rejected and the Tribe Certificate issued to him earlier, is ordered to be cancelled. The Scutiny Committee has passed the said order after taking into consideration all the available material before the Committee. The entire thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Vigilance Committee had not complied with its obligations in terms of Clause 5 of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others reported in ((1994) 6 SCC 241) and further elaborated in the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Shri Rambhau Diwakar Parkhedkar v. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2003(1) ALL MR 1042). It is the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that the Vigilance Committee inspite of the witnesses being available, no inquiry was made with those witnesses regarding the anthropological and ethnological traits, deities, rituals, mode of marriage, etc. of the Gawda Tribe to which the Petitioner claims to belong. 3 Perusal of the impugned Order nowhere discloses any challenge being thrown by the Petitioner to the Vigilance Committee Report or having disputed the findings by the Vigilance Committee in its Report when the matter was being heard before the Scrutiny Committee. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has fairly conceded that before the Scrutiny Committee the Petitioner did not dispute the finding of the Vigilance Committee Report nor raised the contention about the non compliance of obligation by the Vigilance Committee in terms of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case. Undoubtedly, Clause 5 of the directions by the Apex Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil's case requires the Vigilance Committee to make necessary inquiry relating to the claimant's caste or tribe with reference to the traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the concerned castes or tribes. At the same time it is an undisputed fact that as far as Goa is concerned no written record could be available about the tribe of the claimants. Being so, the other method which the Vigilance Committee could adopt is to inquire about the deity, rituals, etc. of the customs of the tribe claimed by the claimant by way of examining the witnesses. In the case at hand, the Vigilance Committee Report undisputedly discloses that apart from three witnesses no witness could be produced nor any other evidence was produced by the Petitioner in support of the claim that he belongs to Gawda Tribe. In fact no efforts were made on the part of the Petitioner to produce any evidence before the Scrutiny Committee. Undoubtedly a day prior to the date of announcement of the 4 order of the Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner sought to produce some evidence before the Committee allegedly in support of his claim. Perusal of those documents nowhere discloses any relevant material to enable the Petitioner to establish the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Gawda Tribe. Unverified certificate of some relation of the Petitioner cannot by itself be a proof in support of his claim that he belongs to a particular community. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has strenuously contended that the impugned Order be set aside and the matter be remanded giving opportunity to the Petitioner to lead further evidence in the matter. The Petitioner, however has not disclosed any substantial material which could be placed before the Scrutiny Committee for its consideration in relation to the tribe claim of the Petitioner. The question of setting aside the order and remanding the matter could arise only if the Petitioner had been able to show us some cogent material which could be of some relevancy to decide the issue of the tribe claim of the Petitioner and not otherwise. It is to be noted that it is not the number of witnesses who can merely say that the Petitioner belongs to the Gawda Tribe. It is the quality of the evidence to decide such issues. Since no cogent evidence was placed before the Scrutiny Committee nor any efforts were made to place before us, to ascertain whether any such cogent material is available in support of his claim, the question of entertaining the request for remand cannot be entertained. We do not find any irregularity committed by the Scrutiny Committee while rejecting the tribe name of the Petitioner and the impugned Order does not call for interference in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5 Hence, the Petition is dismissed. R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD