1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1157 of 2008 Jeejabai Dashrath Moudekar Vs. State of Mah. & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri R. R. Shrivastava Adv. for petitioner. Shri D. P. Thakre AGP for respondent-1. Shri S. M. Puranik Adv. for respondents-3,4. CORAM: D. D. SINHA & C. L. PANGARKAR JJ. Dated: 11 th June, 2008. Heard Shri Shrivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Puranik learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4. 2 This petition is directed against the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 14.02.2008 whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Halba” (Scheduled Tribe) is invalidated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Caste Scrutiny Committee has ignored the document of Birth Certificate issued by the relevant Birth and Death Department of Nagpur Municipal Corporation dated 22.02.2008, wherein the date of birth of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as 26.06.1931. It is contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has relied on the document i.e. Dakhal Kharij Register collected by the Vigilance Cell during the course of the home enquiry and it is alleged that the said document pertains to the father of the petitioner i.e. Dashrath Maroti wherein the caste is shown as Koshti. It is contended that the date of birth of the father of the petitioner in the said document is shown 3 as 09.07.1923 which is inconsistent with the date of birth of the father of the petitioner shown in birth certificate dated 22.02.2008 issued by Birth & Death Department of Municipal Corporation and therefore the document i.e. Dakhal Kharij Register is not a document pertaining to father of the petitioner and the Caste Scrutiny Committee ought not to have relied on the said document for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. It is further contended that the document placed on record by the petitioner show that petitioner belongs to Halba (Scheduled Tribe). Shri Puranik, learned counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, has submitted that birth certificate dated 22.02.2008 does not bear the name of the father of the petitioner and, therefore, it is difficult to hold that said certificate pertains to the father of the petitioner. It is further contended that the petitioner has not questioned the genuineness of the document 4 i.e. Dakhal Kharij Register collected by the Vigilance Cell from the Primary School Mouda which pertains to the father of the petitioner wherein the caste of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as Koshti. It is contended that the document being of 1930 has more probative value and therefore Caste Scrutiny Committee was justified in placing reliance on the said document for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. We have considered the contention of the respective counsel for the parties. It is difficult for us to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner that the birth certificate dated 22.02.2008 issued by the Corporation should be treated to be birth certificate of the father of the petitioner, since the name of the father does not find place in the said certificate. Similarly, as far as extract of the Dakhal Kharij Register is concerned, this document is a very old document of 1930 which is collected by the Vigilance Cell during the 5 home enquiry, from the School, wherein the caste of the father of the petitioner is recorded as Koshti. The petitioner has not specifically challenged authenticity and the genuineness of the said document. In absence thereof the conclusion arrived at by the Caste Scrutiny Committee based on this document cannot be said to be unjustified. Hence, the petition suffers from lack of merit. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present petition so far as the challenge raised by the petitioner in respect of the validity of the composition of the Committee is concerned, in view of the order passed by this Court dated 09.06.2008 in Writ petition No. 1154 of 2008, does not survive. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner states that so far as direction given by the 6 Caste Scrutiny Committee to prosecute the petitioner is concerned, this issue may be kept open. The petition suffers from lack of merit. Hence, same is dismissed. The issue regarding prosecution of the petition is kept open. JUDGE JUDGE svk