1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3943/2006. ( Ku. Ketki Ramesh Raikwar ..vrs.. The State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 27, 2009. Heard Shri G.G. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 and Shri P.B. Patil, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Heard finally by consent. Short grievance made is there is earlier adjudication between the parties vide Writ Petition No. 4582/2003 and in judgment dated 05.11.2004 while remanding the matter back, this Court permitted the Scrutiny Committee to consider the old documents (of pre- independence period produced by the petitioner). The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that those documents are not considered and the affinity test has been applied. According to him, this constitute contempt of Court. The learned Counsel for the Scrutiny Committee, however, states that the Scrutiny Committee has found that no reliance can be placed on those documents, because caste mentioned therein could have been of upper caste also. He 2 therefore, states that the Scrutiny Committee has rightly applied the affinity test. The learned A.G.P. supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for Scrutiny Committee. We have perused the documents and earlier adjudication by this Court. The earlier adjudication specifically requires the Scrutiny Committee to consider the documents placed on record by the petitioner. First such challenge is in relation to father of petitioner which reveals caste as Halbi and occupation as weaving. The said document show date of birth of father is 22.02.1953 and he was admitted in the school on 01.04.1959. The next document is in relation to grand father Tukaram, which again mentions caste as Halbi and occupation as weaving. Date of birth of said grand father as recorded is 12.01.1926. He has taken admission in school on 15.08.1931. These two documents are not specifically considered by the Scrutiny Committee, however, the Scrutiny Committee cannot be said to have disobeyed the orders of this Court, because it has commented on these documents by saying that, even if, caste is recorded as Halbi, therein, it cannot be Halbi Scheduled Tribe, and it could have been a upper caste Halbi. Perusal of the order of the Scrutiny Committee however, shows that because of this inference, the affinity test has been applied and finding adverse to petitioner has been reached. The fact that these documents mentioned profession of weaving has not been looked into. Not only this, during hearing the petitioner has requested this Court to enable her to lead additional evidence for showing affinity. It is pointed out that though the order of the Scrutiny 3 Committee has been delivered on 24.06.2006, and earlier order of this Court is dated 5.11.2004. The learned Counsel states that at that time the view of Division Bench of this Court reported at 2004 [1] Mh.L.J. 177 (Ravi Prakash Parmar .vrs. State of Maharashtra and others), was holding the field. In the present circumstances, without going into further merits of the controversy, we find that the two documents pressed into service by the petitioner to show that she belongs to Halbi Scheduled tribe should have been specifically considered by the Scrutiny Committee in view of the orders dated 5.11.2004 of this Court. We also permit the petitioner to lead positive evidence to show affinity, for that purpose the impugned order dt. 26.6.2006 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee for taking fresh decision in accordance with law, and as early as possible, and in any case by 31.05.2010. Petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 29.09.2009 and to abide by further directions in the matter. Rule accordingly, No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.