- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6389 OF 2008 Jay Hasmukh Chawda ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents Mr R. K. Mendadkar, for the Petitioner. Mr C. R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5.. CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2010. P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5. The writ petition is directed against the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 8th May 2008 whereby the claim of the petitioner belonging to Vankar Caste came to be invalidated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee failed to take into consideration the documentary evidence placed by the petitioner before the Committee as well as oral evidence adduced by the petitioner, in support of his caste - 2 - claim. It is contended that since the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not agree with the report of the Vigilance Cell, it was necessary for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to issue show-cause notice to the petitioner in order to give opportunity in this regard. However, the Committee has failed to do so and therefore, violated the principles contemplated in Sub-rule (8) of Rule 12 of the The Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003. It is therefore, contended that the order impugned is bad in law. 2. The learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 on the other hand supported the impugned order and contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee after taking into consideration the documentary evidence, including the documents pertaining to caste of the real uncle and father of the petitioner as well as oral evidence adduced by the petitioner pertaining to affinity, concluded that the petitioner failed to establish his caste claim and therefore, invalidated his caste certificate. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the respective parties. In the instant case following facts are not in dispute- In the school leaving certificate of the petitioner’s uncle the - 3 - caste is shown as Darji Vankar. Similarly in the school leaving certificate of the father of the petitioner the caste is shown as Hindu. . The caste is inherited by birth and therefore, both these entries are absolutely relevant for the purpose of determining the caste of the petitioner. Neither the entry pertaining to caste of the uncle of the petitioner nor the father demonstrate that they belong to Vankar community. In that event so far as documentary evidence is concerned, it was completely against the petitioner and therefore, on this count the findings recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee were just and proper and are sustainable in law. So far as affinity aspect is concerned, the reasoning given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the order, in our view, is sufficient to demonstrate that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has taken into consideration the evidence adduced by the petitioner, the nature of profession carried out by the ancestors of the petitioner as well as by the petitioner and after taking into consideration all these facts came to the conclusion that the oral evidence adduced by the petitioner was inadequate to establish the affinity with the Vankar community. Consequently, the findings recorded on this issue, in our view, is also just and proper and is also sustainable in law. - 4 - 4. It is not the case where the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing. On the other hand, the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and petitioner has also adduced the oral evidence before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the principles of natural justice were completely observed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and therefore, the contention of the petitioner in respect of the Rule 12(8) of the said Rules 2003 by itself in the circumstances of the present case will not vitiate the impugned order. Consequently, no case is made out for our indulgence and the writ petition is dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage states that the petitioner is a student of final year of B.E. Course and prays that the present order may be kept in abeyance for a period of 12 weeks. In the interest of justice, the present order is kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today. Sd/- [D. D. SINHA, J.] Sd/- [ A. A. SAYED, J.]