1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2949 OF 2010 (SHRI GOPAL NARAYAN NIPANE..VS.. UNION OF INDIA & OTH.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A. Ninawe, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs.S.S. Wandile, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. Mr. Thakare h/f. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : V.C.DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 26, 2010. Perused petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State. 2. The basic challenge in this petition dated 01.06.2010 passed by Scheduled Tribes Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 wherein documentary evidence was appreciated and the affinity test was applied. After appreciating each document on its own merit, by a reasoned order the Scrutiny Committee has come to a conclusion that the petitioner could not prove his tribe claim. While applying the affinity test the Committee also came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish the tribe claim even on the basis of the affinity test. On both the counts the adverse findings were suffered by the petitioner, for which reasons are recorded. 2 3. We were taken through the order passed by the Scheduled Tribes Certificate Verification Committee we have also considered the same. No perversity in the appreciation of the evidence and / or while applying the affinity test could be demonstrated by the petitioner either in the petition or in the oral submissions. 4. This Court not being a Court of appeal is not expected to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its views. Under these circumstances, the impugned order, on merit, cannot be interfered with. The view taken is the impugned order is a reasonable and possible view with which no fault can be found. 5. So far as constitutional challenge setup to the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder is concerned, similar challenges were the subject matter of two petitions before this Court, which were decided, one in the case of Dattatraya Ramrao Thorat Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2003 (5) Mh.L.J. 539, wherein constitutional validity of the said legislation is upheld by this Court repelling the contentions raised in that petition. The challenge to the very same legislation once again came before this Court in Jimala Jageshwar Barapatre Vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition No.2963 of 2007, decided on 12.10.2007, reported in 2000(1) Mh.L.J. 428, wherein again the constitutional validity of the very same legislation was upheld. 3 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that one challenge which was left out was that exclusion of Members of Legislative Assembly and Members of the Parliament from the provisions of the Act resulting in discrimination. In his submission the subject Act is made applicable to the persons in service and not to the MLAs and Mps. This amounts to discrimination hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. The challenge is misplaced. Needless to mention that the Members of Legislative Assembly(MLAs) and Members of Parliament (MPs) are class by themselves. They form separate class. Classification is based on intelligible criteria. Both classes of persons cannot be treated as one class. Therefore, the challenge has no force. No other challenge is set up. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he would like to challenge this order before the Apex Court. He, therefore, prayed that protection, already operating in his favour, for another eight weeks. 8. The prayer made is opposed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader. However, considering the fact that the protection is already operating in favour of the petitioner, the same is extended by another eight weeks from today. Needless to mention that with the expiry of eight weeks, protection shall automatically come to an end. JUDGE JUDGE RR..