1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2969 OF 2009 Suryakant s/o Hanmantrao Markwad ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Shri. P..B. Kakde i/b Advocate G.S. Gadiwan, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri A.B. Madke i/b Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3 Shri K.S. Patil, AGP for respondent No. 1 and 2. ..... CORAM: S. B. DESHMUKH AND S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 16TH JULY, 2009 P. C. :- 1. We heard learned counsel Mr. P..B. Kakde i/b Advocate G.S. Gadiwan, who appears for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. A.B. Madke i/b Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, who appears for respondent No.3 and learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner opened his submission seeking remand of the matter with liberty to produce on record genealogy of the family of the petitioner. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have considered the judgment of the Scrutiny committee. It was appeal No. 2 NAN/688/08 before the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny committee challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Degloor, District Nanded. The Scrutiny committee, has given full opportunity to the present petitioner. The Scrutiny committee in its judgment has noted the documents' which were produced on behalf of the petitioner to substantiate claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Munnerwarlu i.e. Scheduled Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee on assessment of the documents observed that they are of recent origin i.e. immediately after passing Presidential Order 1950. The Scrutiny Committee has further observed that these documents cannot be considered to be conclusive proof to determine the present petitioner's Tribe claim. The committee has considered the family tree, which was produced before the committee on behalf of the petitioner along with validity certificate, which was on record at Sr. No.5 of blood relatives of the petitioner and whose caste claim was decided by the earlier caste scrutiny committee. The committee has considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil. It seems that the committee was of the opinion that the blood relations claimed by the petitioner, to his cousin, is third degree of the family of the petitioner. The Committee has recorded the findings that the petitioner failed to prove that validity holder concern is from blood relative, the committee was of the view that the documents do not help the present petitioner to substantiate his claim. The most important aspect that the committee has noticed that the caste of the father of the petitioner Mr. Hanmant Maruti recorded in National Citizen 3 Register 1951, as "Munnarwad" (Not schedule tribe). This finding is also recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer, which has been confirmed by the scrutiny committee on assessment. The said document is old one. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. It is not the case wherein the opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner either by the Sub Divisional officer or by the Scrutiny Committee. On the contrary, material placed on the record by the petitioner has been considered by the authorities. In our view, no case, for judicial review in the case on hand. The petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. *****