1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.304 of 2005 [Umesh Laxmanrao Gokhe Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Aparajit Ninawe, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Adv., for respondent no.1. Mr. T.A. Mirza, AGP for respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6. ------ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 25th August, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. Aparaji Ninawe for petitioner, learned Adv. Mr. Sambre for respondent no.1-Committee and learned AGP Mr. Mirza for respondent nos. 2,5 and 6. 2. Contention of Adv. Mr. Ninawe is that the petitioner has produced old documents which show that the caste of the petitioner and his ancestors has all the while been recorded as Halbi. He states that those old documents of even pre-independence period have not been found to be either tampered or manipulated, and only 2 because profession has been shown as weaving therein, the same have been ignored. He further states that the test of weaving as a taboo in Halba-Halbi community being applied by the Scrutiny Committee is itself unsustainable and unscientific. He also contended that in addition to this, the petitioner has led evidence to prove affinity and described the traits and customs correctly. According to him, its appreciation by Committee is erroneous and Committee does not have any authentic material with it to contend that the petitioner does not satisfy affinity test. He, therefore, contends that impugned order of Scrutiny Committee is unsustainable. 3. During arguments, we found that impugned order delivered by Scrutiny Committee is dated 24th December, 2004 when Division Bench Judgment of this Court about the appreciation of documents and on affinity was holding the field. That judgment has been overruled subsequently vide Judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ravi Prakash Parmar [2007 (2) Mh.L.J. 250]. However, Adv. Mr. Ninawe specifically stated that petitioner does not want any additional opportunity to lead evidence before Scrutiny Committee to show affinity and all possible evidence is already placed on record by the petitioner. He, therefore, requested the Court not to remand the matter back and in case the Court is passing 3 adverse order against the petitioner, to continue the interim order for a further period of 12 weeks, so as to enable the petitioner to approach Hon ble Apex Court in the matter. 4. Adv. Mr. Sambre, on the other hand, has contended that Scrutiny Committee has perused the documents and because even in old documents, the profession has been shown as weaving , the Scrutiny Committee found that caste Halbi recorded therein is not a Scheduled Tribe, but a sub-tribe of caste Koshti. He, therefore, stats that as per material available with Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has appreciated these documents and also has applied affinity test. He invites attention to discussion in paragraph 10 of impugned order, to show that material placed on record by the petitioner did not meet the requirements and hence the affinity test was not satisfied. 5. The fact that old documents show caste as Halbi is not in dispute before us, but coupled with it is also a fact that in some of those documents, profession has been described as weaving. According to Scrutiny Committee, weaving is a taboo amongst Scheduled Tribe Halbis. The Committee has applied affinity test also to material brought by petitioner, and it is not the case of petitioner that material tendered by him has not been evaluated. Contention is the Scrutiny Committee has no 4 authentic material with it to discredit the evidence tendered on record by the petitioner. We, therefore, wanted to give the petitioner an opportunity to lead additional evidence before Committee in this respect. However, the petitioner does not appear to be ready and willing for it. 6. In the circumstances, we find that Scrutiny Committee has considered the documents and also the traits and customs placed on record by the petitioner, and has found that the petitioner does not belong to Halbi  Scheduled Tribe. In view of this position, in a writ jurisdiction, we are not in a position to interfere with the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 7. As the petitioner is already continuing in service, we continue the interim order passed on 27th January, 2005 for a period of twelve weeks more from today, so as to enable the petitioner to take further appropriate steps in the matter. The interim order shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. Judge Judge |Hedau| 5