1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7116 OF 2004 ... Mr.Chetan Prakash Thakur ...Petitioner v/s The State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.N.P.Pandit, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 14 th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims,dated 27-7-2004 holding that the caste certified relied on by the Petitioner for 2 claiming that he belongs to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe is not valid. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the validity of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, which is the well reasoned and the detailed order, firstly on the ground that the Committee has not properly considered the evidence on record. He then submitted that it appears that there were two reports by Vigilance Cell, one submitted by the Vigilance Cell before the Scrutiny Committee on 27-12-2002 and the second report of the Vigilance Cell which was submitted after the matter was remanded by the High Court to the Scrutiny Committee. According to the Petitioner, copy of the first report was not supplied to the Petitioner. It was then submitted that the father and the mother of the Petitioner were 3 not interviewed by the Scrutiny Committee and this, according to the learned Counsel is contrary to the directions issued and observations made by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shilpa Vishnu Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors, 2009 (3) Mh.L.J., 995. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Respondent. Perusal of the order impugned shows that the Scrutiny Committee has passed a detailed order. The Vigilance Cell during the course of the inquiry has visited the original native place of the Petitioner at village Dangri, Taluka: Amalner, District: Jalgaon and recorded the statements of old persons who knew the family of the Petitioner. One of the persons whose statement was recorded by the Vigilance Cell was Shri Bhagwan Ananda Patil, who at that 4 time was 72 years of age. He stated that he knew the Great Grand-father of the Petitioner. He stated that his caste was `Bhat and his main profession was to settle the marriages among the people. He also stated that the Babulal Shenu Wankhede and Sitaram Ganpat Thakur were closely related to the family of the Petitioner. In the school record the caste of the close relatives of the Petitioner is recorded as Hindu Thakur (Bhat). After the matter was remanded by the High Court, again the Vigilance Cell submitted the report on 16-12-2002, and at that time the Vigilance Cell recorded the statement of maternal grand-father of the Petitioner. The maternal grand-father has stated in his statement that the ancestral profession of the family of the Petitioner is seeking alms by visiting various villages on horse, agriculture and agricultural 5 labour. Their mother tongue is Marathi and surnames of their close relatives are also mentioned. After conducting this inquiry and after considering the material on record, the Scrutiny Committee recorded a finding that the Petitioner does not belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. 4. What is pertinent to be noted here is that though it is the contention of the Petitioner that the report of the Vigilance Cell submitted to the Scrutiny Committee on earlier occasion before remand was not made available to him. Perusal of the explanation given by the Petitioner to the report of the Vigilance Cell shows that the Petitioner has dealt with even the first report of the Vigilance Cell. It shows that the Petitioner had the Vigilance Cell report even submitted on the first occasion available to him. What 6 is further pertinent to be noted is that a detailed statement made by Shri Bhagwan Ananda Patil was relied on by the Vigilance Cell. In relation to that statement in the explanation the Petitioner does not say that Shri Bhagwan Ananda Patil was not known to his great grand-father. So far as the failure of the Vigilance Cell to record the statements of the father and the mother of the Petitioner are concerned, in our opinion, in view of the detailed statement made by the maternal grand-father of the Petitioner, it was not really necessary to record a statement of the Petitioner s father. The material available on record clearly shows that the Petitioner does not belong to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe. In our opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in its judgment in the case of Shilpa, referred to above, the Scrutiny 7 Committee was justified in inquiring into the affinity aspect while deciding the validity of the caste certificate of the Petitioner. In our opinion, in this view of the matter, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Scrutiny Committee. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)