- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4190/1998 Vatsalabai Pralhad Singh Thakur, aged 51 yrs., occu.household, r/o Ward No.11, Jawahar Mohalla, Ambad Dist.Jalna. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] Caste Scrutiny Committee under Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 2] The State of Maharashtra. 3] Sow.Meenakshi Purushottam Udawant, age major, occu.household, 4] Smt.Abeda Bi Shaikh Maqbool, aged major, occu.household, Res.nos.3 & 4 both r/o Ambad Dist.Jalna. ...Respondents... ..... Shri S.S. Bora, Advocate h/f Shri S.C. Bora, Advocate for petitioner. Shri N.B. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. - 2 - Mrs.M.A. Kulkarni, Advocat for respondent no.3. Miss.Varsha Kapse, Advocate h/f Smt.Surekha Mahajan, Advocate for respondent no.4. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 02.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] Heard counsel for the parties. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent no.1 – scrutiny committee thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Rajput Bhamta – nomadic tribe. 3] Shri S.S. Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that though the petitioner has produced voluminous record to support her claim, the same has not been considered by the committee. He submits that the petitioner had filed affidavit of her cousins whose caste claims had been validated. 4] Shri N.B. Patil, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1- committee, submits that the committee has rightly considered the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioner. - 3 - 5] Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the school record of the real brothers of the petitioner from Malegaon would show that their caste is recorded as “Pardeshi”. The petitioner has not been in a position to place on record any material either of herself or her close relatives to establish that the claim of any one belonging to Rajput Bhamta has been validated. 6] Apart from that, even the degree of relation with the person, who is alleged to have been held to be Rajput Bhamta, is not placed on record to examine the correctness of the submission in that respect. 7] In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the order of the committee, which warrants any interference. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c28108