PVR 1 wp5871/10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5871 OF 2010 Mahesh s/o. Kailas Pawar. ...Petitioner vs. 1.Scheduled Tribe Certificate Verification & Scrutiny Committee and others. ...Respondents --- Mr.U.A.Sugdare, for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATED: 31th August, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. Perused the record. The Committee has found that in the school record of the Grandfather of the petitioner, his caste has been mentioned as Maratha Thakur. The scrutiny committee which consists of experts has applied PVR 2 wp5871/10 its mind to the affinity test and has held that the petitioner does not have affinity with the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The learned Counsel appearing for Petitioner relied on three judgments. One judgment is of the Division Bench of this Court in the case Shivaji Shankar Konkewad Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2009(1)Mh.L.J. 943. Perusal of that judgment shows that in that judgment the Division Bench has held that the Vigilance cell should follow the procedure laid down by the Rules. While holding the inquiry in the present case, we find that the vigilance cell has visited the original village of the petitioner and has recorded the statements and has made inquiry. We do not find that the inquiry in this case was made by the vigilance cell contrary to the provisions of the Rule. Then relying on the judgment of Full Bench in the case Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors, 2009(3)Mh.L.J. 995 , it is contended that the inquiry into affinity test has not been held as per the law laid down by the PVR 3 wp5871/10 Full Bench. Perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee shows that they have considered all the relevant aspects and have recorded their finding. We do not find how the order of the Scrutiny committee is contrary to the judgment of the Full Bench referred to above. The learned Counsel then relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney & Ors., (2009)4 Supreme Court Cases 240 to contend that the quasi judicial authority has to disclose its reasons. However, perusal of the order shows that the order of the Scrutiny Committee is a reasoned order. 2. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned, considering that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee which consists of experts and there are no allegations of malafides against them. In our opinion, PVR 4 wp5871/10 therefore, this is not a case where this Court should interfere with in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) ...