1 1040.08wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2008 WITH CA/2726/2008 IN WP/1040/2008 SANTOSH RAGHUNATH THAKUR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A S Golegaonkar AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.S. Tope. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, & V.K. JADHAV,JJ. DATE : 3RD MAY, 2014 PER COURT : . Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Upon perusal of the copies of the documents and discussion by the Committee in the impugned decision, prima facie it appears to this Court that, the petitioner did place on record number of documents pertains to the year 1922, 1926, 2 1040.08wp 1932 and 1945. In all these documents in caste column 'Thakur' is mentioned. Even vigilance cell report is not adverse to the petitioner. The respondent-Committee has not accepted the documents prior to independence, though 'Thakur' is mentioned in caste column on the ground that, mentioning 'Thakur' against caste column in the public document would not be sole ground to hold that, person belongs to 'Thakur', scheduled tribe. As already observed, vigilance cell report is not adverse to the petitioner. On the contrary, entry of 'Thakur' is confirmed by vigilance cell in various documents including record of the father, uncle and other relatives. In our opinion, the Committee should not have rejected the tribe claim of the petitioner. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to Exhibit-E at page-48 of the compilation of the petition and submits that, validity issued in favour of one Mr. Pradit Tryambak Mahale who is second 3 1040.08wp cousin of the petitioner. However, said document was not before the Committee. 3. At this stage, learned A.G.P. prays time to take instructions in respect of prayer of the petitioner in Civil Application for reinstatement. Stand over to 08/05/2014. . Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this order. [ V.K. JADHAV, J.] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] Tupe/3.5.14