{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.773 OF 2009 Bhagwan Sandu Sapkal PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.A.B.Kale h/f Mr.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for petitioner Mr.Dilip Patil Banka, AGP for respondents No.1 & 3 Mr.M.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ....... [CORAM : V.C.DAGA, J. and A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE : 18 th July 2009 PER COURT: 1. When this matter was called out today, Mr.Kale h/f Mr.Bayas advocate prayed for adjournment on the ground that Mr.Bayas is out of town and busy before another court. 2. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that day before yesterday this matter was heard by us at length. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that no home inquiry was conducted and no statement of {2} the father of the petitioner was recorded. The specific averments made in this behalf in the writ petition read as under- “Coming to the report of vigilance inquiry it is clearly shown that home inquiry has not been conducted. It is observed in the report that statement of the father has been recorded by the inquiry officer and he has recorded the trade, traditions, customs in the statement recorded by the vigilance officer. It is to be added that in the impugned order respondent No.2 has observed that on the basis of statement of the father the petitioner failed to prove the affinity towards Koli Malhar, Scheduled Tribe. It is pertinent to note that, no point of time home inquiry has been conducted. No point of time the statement of father of the petitioner is recorded. None of the officer from vigilance cell, has visited to the resident of the petitioner or to the father of the petitioner. None of time the father of the petitioner was called by vigilance officer for recording the statement. Therefore the observation in the vigilance report that the vigilance officer has recorded the statement of the father of the petitioner is perverse, wrong and false and contrary to the fact. It is also important to note that respondent no 2 committee considering the report of vigilance inquiry has come to conclusion that petitioner has utterly fail to prove his affinity and ethnic linkage towards Koli Malhar, Scheduled Tribe. On this count alone the impugned order {3} passed by respondent no.2 is required to be quashed and set aside.” 3. Faced with the above argument, we called upon the learned counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee to react to the submissions made. From the original file, held by him, he pointed out that the statement of the father of the petitioner was recorded by the Vigilance Officer. It bears endorsement of Mr.S.V.Mendke, Police Superintendent Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. The said statement also bears thumb impression of the father of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner was confronted with the subject document. In reply, he submitted that he will have to take instructions from the father of the petitioner. In order to enable him to take instructions from the father of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned and time was granted to him. When the matter was about to be adjourned Mr.Bayas did mention to this Court that he would not be available. When this court informed that the matter would not be adjourned on the adjourned date looking to the false statement made in the petition, he assured this Court that alternate arrangement would be made. Accordingly, the petition was adjourned to this date. In the aforesaid circumstances, prayer for adjournment was rejected. 4. As already stated above, this petition was heard by us {4} in detail. It was adjourned only to confirm whether the statement of the father of the petitioner was recorded or not. Nobody is present in the Court on behalf of the petitioner with instructions. In para 7 a blatantly false statement is made by the petitioner. We have perused the original file wherein the statement of the father of the petitioner kept. 5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed for misleading the Court by making false statement in the petition. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs, quantified in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the State Government. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [V.C.DAGA, J.] drp/wp773-09