1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2669 OF 2006 WITH C.A.NO : 4623/2006 (Kishor Vishwanath Gondhale vs. State of Maharashtra and others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. K V Deshmukh, Adv.for petitioner/s Mr.Nitin Sambre, GP for Respondent -State CORAM: A .M.KHANWILKAR & R.C.CHAVAN,JJ. DATED: 24th April, 2008. *** 1. Heard counsel for parties. 2. Grievance of the petitioner that the Research Officer did not accompany the concerned Police Constable at the time of inquiry which has vitiated the report and consequently the inquiry, does not commend to us. That contention is founded on misreading of relevant provisions. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed emphasis on Rules 10 and 12 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Certificate Rules, 2003. According to the petitioner in constitution of Vigilance Cell, one of the members of the Cell is Research Officer. According to petitioner, the Research Officer was obliged to accompany the Police Constable who had visited the places on relevant dates to investigate the matter. The argument clearly overlooks that 2 procedure provided under Rule 12 does not expect the Research Officer to accompany the Police Constable. In fact, the local place of residence and original place is required to be visited by the Vigilance officer. That formality has been complied with in the present case which fact is not in dispute. Counsel for petitioner, however, relies on sub-rule (5) of Rule 12 to contend that it refers to the fact that Vigilance Cell shall examine the parents or guardian of the applicant for the purpose of verification of tribe of the applicant. This sub-rule cannot be read in isolation. The procedure for inquiry is referred to in earlier part of Rue 12 which has to be undertaken by the Vigilance Officer and not the Vigilance Cell. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Vigilance Officer made necessary visit to the local place of residence and original place from which the applicant hails and usually resides. 4. Having regard to the position stated in the reply-affidavit, we find no infirmity in the procedure undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee during the inquiry or the ultimate view taken in the matter to invalidate the caste claim of the petitioner. 5. As no other contention has been raised before us which does not find favour with us, we dismiss this petition. Order accordingly. 3 6. Needless to say that the Civil Application does not survive. The same is also disposed off. JUDGE JUDGE sahare