(1) WP No. 517/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.517 OF 2007 Baburao s/o Rangrao Rudre ] Aranwadi,Tq.Dharoor, ] PETITIONER. Dist. Beed. ] VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary ]RESPONDENTS. Tribe Development Deptt., ] Mantralaya,Mumbai & others.] ----- Mr.S.B.Talekar,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.U.K.Patil,AGP, for respondents No.1 & 3. Mr.M.S.Deshmukh,Advocate, for respondent No.2 Mr.H.K.Munde, Advocate, for respondents No.4 & 5. ----- CORAM : Naresh H. Patil and N.D.Deshpande, JJ. DATE : 1st July, 2009. ORAL ORDER [ PER – NARESH H. PATIL, J.] 1] Heard. 2] The petitioner challenges invalidation of his tribe claim as “Mahadev Koli” Scheduled Tribe. 3] The learned counsel Shri.S.B.Talekar, for petitioner, submits that in this case there was no (2) WP No. 517/2007 home inquiry conducted and no vigilance cell report was submitted. The castes of near relatives of petitioner in the school registers are shown as “Hindu Mahadev Koli”. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for short “the Scrutiny Committee”) discarded petitioner’s tribe claim on the basis of entry in the school register of petitioner’s sister viz. Kum.Rudre Vimalbai Rangrao, which was found to be interpolated. The counsel, therefore, submitted that on the solitary entry of the sister of the petitioner, the petitioner’s tribe claim cannot be discarded. 4] The learned counsel Shri.M.S.Deshmukh, appearing on behalf of Scrutiny Committee, submitted that the genealogy was not submitted by petitioner. Burden was on the petitioner to establish his tribe claim. The counsel invited our attention to the vigilance cell report that in spite of written communication made to petitioner to remain present for recording his statement, petitioner did not remain present. The Vigilance Officer thereafter collected other evidence in relation to the relatives of petitioner, and accordingly, a report was filed. Our attention was invited to the affidavit of one Maroti Chandoba Faskulwad, who is related to the petitioner from maternal side, which, according to the counsel, is not of any help to the petitioner as he (Maroti Chandoba Faskulwad) could (3) WP No. 517/2007 not be termed as a relative under the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000. 5] We have perused the material placed on record and considered the submissions advanced. We find that Scrutiny Committee, while appreciating the record of the case, observed thus: “ Document listed at Sr.No.19 is the school record of applicant’s real sister, basic school record is “Hi” and the word “M. Koli” is added afterwards in different handwriting. Hence this document cannot be considered as proof to decide the tribe claim of applicant.” 6] The Scrutiny Committee even observed that whatever information furnished by the petitioner about traditional occupation, God/Godess, surnames and custom, culture, following etc. were not associated with the real Scheduled Tribe Community people. We do not find any glaring or serious error committed by Scrutiny Committee in appreciation of the record. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden to prove his tribe claim. In exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is warranted. (4) WP No. 517/2007 Petition deserves to be dismissed. 7] Petition stands dismissed. [ N.D.Deshpande,J.] [ Naresh H. Patil,J.] pcr/o/wp517.07