1 WP8937/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8937 OF 2010 Dheeraj Pandurang Balwatkar ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr J.G. Reddy with Mr A.S. Bayas for Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D. DESHPANDE JJ. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2010. 2 WP8937/10 P.C. :- 1] By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 31st March 2010 holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe is not valid. Perusal of the order shows that there is an entry in the record of the year 1941 showing that the caste of the petitioner s grand-father has been recorded as Koli. The Scrutiny Committee, therefore, relying on this entry and other entries, has held that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe is not valid. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner pointed out to us that a validity certificate has been issued in favour of the brother of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to validity certificate. He has relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Apoorva Vinay Nichale v/s Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee and ors., reported in 2010(6)Mh.L.J. 401 wherein the Division Bench has observed that if blood relatives 3 WP8937/10 are granted validity certificate, other relatives should not be denied validity certificate. In our opinion, before the Division Bench in that case, the question was not if validity certificate is issued in favour of a relative of a person by a Committee when the entire material is not placed before the Committee, whether that order will bind for all times to come on other Committees in relation to the relatives of the person concerned though contrary material is produced before the Committee which is more reliable which shows that the person does not belong to a particular caste. In our opinion, as the Committee has found that the validity certificate in favour brother of the petitioner was issued without considering the entire record particularly the entry in relation to the grand father of the petitioner, the Committee has rightly made the order. As the point in issue in the present case was not considered by the Division Bench in Apporva Nichale s case, that judgment is not relevant. Petition is rejected. 4 WP8937/10 Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE N.D. DESHPANDE )