1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 336/2008 (Kiran Shrawan Hedaoo VERSUS The State of Mah. & others ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Ghate, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2008. Heard Mr. Ghate, the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee whereby the caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated. The petitioner has submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has ignored the document filed by the petitioner which is of the year 1919 in respect of cousin grandfather namely Ganapati wherein the caste of the cousin grandfather of the petitioner was shown to be “Halba”. It is, therefore, contended that this being the oldest document, the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought to have placed reliance on this document since this document was having more probative value as against the other documents collected by the Vigilance Cell. Considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner and also perused the 2 impugned order. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the document of the year 1949 is in respect of the father of the petitioner Shrawan Mahipat and the caste of the father of the petitioner mentioned in the said document is “Koshti”. Similar is the situation in respect of documents pertaining to four paternal uncles of the petitioner wherein the caste shown is “Koshti”. So far as the document of the year 1919 is concerned, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has observed in the order that the birth entry in respect of Ganpati son of Prema is in different ink and handwriting, and therefore, branded the said document as doubtful. In the backdrop of the above referred fact, particularly in view of the documents pertaining to the father and paternal uncles of the petitioner wherein the caste shown is Koshti, it is difficult for us to except the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner particularly because the document on which the reliance is placed by the counsel for the petitioner is a doubtful one. Consequently, the petition suffers from lack of merit and the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE