1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4433 of 2006 [Sunil Gulabrao Sonkusare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ] 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 : 27th August, 2009. 1. Heard finally. 2. Shri N. Phadnis, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that by ignoring the old documents consistently showing the caste of ancestors of petitioners as Halbi, the Scrutiny Committee has only because of document in relation to one Madhukar Govind Sonkusare, which records his caste as Koshti, rejected the caste claim of petitioner by applying affinity test. He points out that the petitioner had objected to the said recording in the case of Madhukar as incorrect. 3. Shri Zaheer, learned Counsel holding for Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent Scrutiny Committee as also learned A.G.P. are supporting the impugned order. They state that caste of Madhukar is recorded as Koshti. It is apparent that the caste earlier 2 shown as Haibi si not independent caste, but sub-caste of Koshti only. 4. With the assistance of the leaned counsel we have perused the papers. We find that the petitioner has relied upon old certificates of the year 1943 in relation to his maternal uncle which reflected caste recorded as Halbi. Similarly, caste of father of petitioner – Gulabrao was recorded in primary school in the year 1943 as Halbi. There are some other documents, but those documents are of recent origin. When these old documents are looked into, only because caste is mentioned as Koshti in case of Madhukar Govind, in the face of the objection raised by the petitioner it cannot be said that the said certificate clinches the issue. 5. The learned Counsel for petitioner has attempted to demonstrate that the affinity test has been applied mechanically and the petitioner could not get enough opportunity. He further states that that in view of the old documents in his favour, the petitioner did not lead necessary evidence to prove affinity, as then the law as explained by the Division Bench of this Court as reported at 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 177 (Ravi Prakash Parmar .vrs. State of Maharashtra), was holding the field. He therefore, has sought remand of the matter. 6. Taking over all view of the matter, when the Scrutiny Committee could not have mechanically, only because of document in favour Madhukar Govind, concluded that the old entries of Halbi were of sub-caste 3 Halbi of Koshti caste and not of Halbi Scheduled Tribe. However, we do not conclude the issue as we are inclined to extend petitioner one opportunity to lead evidence to show affinity before the Scrutiny Committee. For that purpose, the impugned order dated 26.6.2006 is quashed and set aside, and matter is remanded back to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision, after giving opportunity to the petitioner in accordance with law. As the matter is old, the respondent Scrutiny Committee to take decision as early as possible, and in any case by 31st May, 2010. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 30th September, 2009, and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. 7. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd