1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4925/2006 (Nitin Pralhad Mahajan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another ] 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 AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 28th August, 2009. Heard Shri N.R. Pathrabe, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri Zaheer, learned Counsel holding for Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Learned Counsel for petitioner points out that though documents produced by the petitioner on record reveal his caste to be Halbi, only because of affinity test the caste claim has been negatived. He contends that the affinity test has also not been applied properly. He has invited our attention to the impugned order dated 26.6.2006 to point out that it no where mentions any documents showing caste of petitioner as Koshti or otherwise. He further states that the said order itself 2 mentions the Division Bench order reported at 2004 [1] Mh.L.J. 177 (Ravi Prakash Parmar .vrs. State of Maharashtra), and also the fact of Hon’ble Apex Court admitting S.L.P. against it. He therefore, states that the petitioner be given liberty to lead evidence to bring on record the affinity. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 are opposing the request. They states that copy of the Vigilance Cell report was served upon him and opportunity was given. Perusal of the record shows that there is no document showing that caste of petitioner or his ancestors was recorded either as Koshti or then as belonging to any other tribe or community at any time. Thus only affinity test has been applied and for that purpose the Scrutiny Committee appears to have relied upon the statement of brother of petitioner, recorded by it. It is clear that at the relevant time, view of Division Bench reported at reported at 2004 [1] Mh.L.J. 177 (Ravi Prakash Parmar .vrs. State of Maharashtra), was holding the field and it has been upset after the impugned order, vide judgment reported at 2007 [2] Mh.L.J. 250 (State of Maharashtra .vrs. Ravi Prakash Parmar ). Hence we are inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence to prove affinity on record. For that purpose, the impugned order date 26/6/2008 is quashed and set aside, and the matter is restored back to 3 the file of Scrutiny Committee with direction to decide the same in accordance with the law, and as early as possible and in any case by 30.06.2010. The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 5.10.2009, and abide by its further directions in the matter. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd