1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.165 OF 2009 Chandulal Tanaji Bachhav .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the Respondents. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. 23rd March, 2010. P.C.: 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, (hereinafter referred to as the Committee ) on August 4, 2008. The Committee found “ ” that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe community is unsustainable. 2. Before the Committee the petitioner relied upon 29 documents. The Committee, after considering the aforesaid evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe community cannot be justified. The Committee has found that in the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell it is pointed out that the caste of the petitioner s father-Tanaji Sitaram ’ Bachhav as mentioned in the school record was Hindu Koli and the “ ” date of admission in the school was 9.8.47. The Committee has also considered the Vigilance Cell s report which was adverse against the ’ 2 Petitioner. It is also found by the Committee that in the School record of the Petitioner, his aunt, brother and cousin uncle, the caste is recorded either as Hindu Mahadeo Koli or as Hindu Koli Mahadeo and these entries pertain to period from 1956 and onwards. The report of the Vigilance Cell was served on the petitioner with Committee s notice ’ dated July 10, 2008 asking him to submit his explanation, but the petitioner has not submitted any explanation against the report of the Vigilance Cell. The Petitioner was also given personal hearing by the Committee to establish his claim. 3. On appreciation of evidence it was found that the claim of the petitioner was not justified. In this connection, the Committee also considered the the claim of one Pradeep Shrawan Bachhav which was invalidated by the Committee vide its order dated April 20, 2007. The Committee has pointed out that to support his claim, the Pradeep Bachhav had produced an affidavit of one Jagannath Onkar Bachhav saying his relation with the Pradeep as cousin brother. The petitioner in the present case viz.Chandulal Tanaji Bachhav had also submitted before the Committee that the same Jagannath Onkar Bachhav relates to him as cousin brother. The petitioner herein also produced affidavit of Jagannath Onkar Bachhav stating that he is his cousin brother. The Committee has gone through the affidavits and found that there were contradictions between both the affidavits in respect of relations. The Committee accordingly found that the affidavit of Jagannath Bachhav no-where supports the claim of the 3 petitioner. 4. It is required to be noted that writ petition filed by the petitioner s’ cousin brother viz.Pradeep Bachhav being Writ Petition No.5108 of 2007 has been dismissed by this Court holding thereby that he does not belong to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe, as his father s caste in the school ’ record was shown as Hindu Koli and even his uncle was found to be of Hindu Koli community. 5. The Committee, in its order on Page Nos.10 and 11 has observed as under:- The applicant was called for personal hearing before the Scrutiny “ Committee on 30.7.2008. Accordingly, the applicant and his father were appeared for hearing and heard fully on 30.7.2008. The information given by the applicant and his father during the course of hearing and the information filled in by the applicant in the interview sheet is as follows:- 1. The dialect of their community is Ahirani and Marathi, 2. Kandoba, Bhahiroba, Tuljabhavani are their deities, 3. The surnames of their community people are Khairnar, Garud, Ahire, Kshirsagar etc. 4. The applicant and his father are unknown about Hirwa “ Dev and Dhanduk ” “ ” The information furnished by the applicant regardng their traits, characteristics, custom etc. is inconsistent with the Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe. The applicant has failed to establish his affinity and ethnic linkage towards the Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe community . ” 6. In our view, the Committee, after considering the evidence has recorded the finding of fact, which finding, is not required to be disturbed by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. The petitioner has annexed the order passed by the Tahasildar, Malegaon, whereby the claim of the petitioner s father in a revenue case was ’ 4 upheld. It may be noted that so far as the question about examination of caste certificate is concerned, admittedly the Tahasildar has no jurisdiction nor such a question was placed before the Tahasildar. Even the proceedings in the said revenue case which were initiated by one Daval Rama Mali against the father of the petitioner were dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation as proceedings were filed after 26 years. In the present case, no weightage can be given to the said proceedings which were initiated under different law against the father of the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner therefore cannot rely upon the said decision given by the Tahasildar in a revenue case. 8. Considering the aforesaid aspects, in our view, it cannot be said that the order of the Committee suffers from any illegality. As stated earlier, the Committee has considered necessary documents and reached to the finding after appreciating the evidence on record. We do not find any substance in this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)