1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6235 OF 2006 (Kum. Aparna Sudhakarrao Parate vs. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. OCTOBER 01, 2009. Heard Shri Harode, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Doifode, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 3 and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Patil, learned counsel raises a preliminary objection and pointed out that the impugned order of Caste Scrutiny Committee is dated 16.12.2003 and it is challenged after about three years but delay and laches for the same has not been explained. Though the petitioner states that all his ancestors were literate, no documents have been produced before the Caste Scrutiny Committee or before this Court to substantiate the caste claim and caste claim of real sister of the present petitioner by name Aruna Sudhakarrao Parate has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee on 25.01.2002. Shri Harode, learned counsel states that the Scrutiny Committee could not find any documents 2 against the caste claim of the petitioner. Only by applying affinity test, the caste claim has been invalidated. He invites attention to plea of the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee to show that because of coming in contact with Marathi community and Marathi speaking people for over 100 years, the knowledge of language of Halba community is lost. He further argues that for the same reasons, the affinity test also could not be established. He, however, states that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence to bring on record affinity and also place old documents before the Scrutiny Committee. Shri Patil, learned counsel is opposing this request. Though the Vigilance Cell has not produced before the Scrutiny Committee any old records, the burden was upon the petitioner to show the documents before independence to reveal the caste as Halba. There is no such document and the oldest document is of the year 1962. The petitioner has stated that all her family members were literate. In these circumstances, why the old documents could not be produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee is a moot question. No documents are produced even before this Court to show that in old documents caste of his ancestors was recorded as Halba. Invalidation of caste claim of real sister in 2002 is not in dispute. In view of that invalidation, heavier burden was definitely upon the 3 petitioner to substantiate her caste claim before the Scrutiny Committee and then before this Court but that burden has not been discharged. The perusal of writ petition shows that writ petition is filed on 6.12.2006 i.e. about three years after the impugned order and that delay has not been explained. The petitioner appears to be serving under Respondent No.3 and said respondent has given a notice for disciplinary action on 21.02.2006 and after receipt of that notice, perhaps after adjournment, the present writ petition has been filed. In view of these facts and conduct of the petitioner, we are not inclined to interfere in present petition. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.