1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.321 OF 2009 Snehal Suresh Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. : 1. By invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the decision taken by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee be set aside and it should be held that the petitioners belong to Dongar Koli Community. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners father belong to Son Koli ’ Community. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the caste certificate issued to the cousin sister of the petitioners wherein the cousin sister of the petitioners was treated to be of Mahadev Koli Community. Even as per the said caste certificate given to the petitioners cousin sister, it is clear that she was not belonging to Dongar ’ Koli Community. Learned counsel for petitioners however tried to submit that Dongar Koli and Mahadev Koli communities are just one and same, for which he has relied upon Entry No. 29 of the Presidential order. It 2 is required to be noted that the fact finding authority, after considering the material on record, has specifically come to the finding that the certificate issued to the Petitioners father reveals that he belongs to Son ’ Koli community. The Joint Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order has observed as under:- Comments of the Committee on the documents submitted by the “ applicants are as follows: The applicants have submitted copies of the Caste Certificate and School Leaving Certificate in respect of themselves and their relatives which reveal their caste as Dongar Koki and Mahadeo Koli. An extract of School admission register brought by the Vigilance Cell of the Committee pertaining to applicants father ’ reveals his caste as Son Koli which is of the year 1953. The two “ ” of applicants other relatives are found to be Dongar Koli and “ Don Koli . Thus the Committee came across various caste entries ” of the applicants and their relatives as Dongar Koli, Mahadeo Koli, Son Koli and Don Koli. Therefore it is difficult to rely upon these entries. As said earlier the caste entry of the applicants father is ’ found to be Son Koli and therefore, the question before the Committee was how the caste of the applicants is Dongar Koli?. As the caste is acquired by birth and form the paternal side and the caste of the applicants father is found to be Son Koli, the caste of ’ the applicants is bound to be Son Koli and not Dongar Koli as claimed by the applicants.” 3. On behalf of the State additional affidavit has also been filed wherein it is clearly stated that the claim of the petitioners that they belong to Dongar Koli community is not sustainable. 4. In paragraph No.6 of the impugned order, the Committee has also considered the remarks of the Research Officer associated with the Vigilance Cell of the Scrutiny Committee, which reveal that the traits 3 characteristics, customs, tradition deities, mother tongue, traditional dance etc. do not match with that of Dongar Koli Scheduled Tribe. The information furnished by the Vigilance Cell is also taken into consideration. It has been found that the father of the petitioners failed to point out the specific customs etc. and the petitioners have clearly failed to prove and establish their affinity towards the Dongar Koli Scheduled Tribe. In paragraph No.5 of the affidavit-in-reply, the State has made an averment that the Committee has taken into consideration the caste entry of the petitioners father in the School record as Son Koli. ’ 5. In our view, this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot re- appreciate the evidence on record, and it cannot be said that the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee has taken a decision without considering the material on record. Considering the aforesaid aspects, we do not find any justification in the submissions of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners belong to Dongar Koli community. Apart from the fact that the father of the Petitioners was treated as Son Koli, even on merits the authority has found that the claim of the petitioners that they belong to Dongar Koli community is not justified. We do not find any substance in the petition. 6. It is clarified that this Court has considered only a limited issue as to whether the petitioners belong to Dongar Koli community and according 4 to us there is no justification in the petitioners claim that they belong to Dongar Koli community. 7. Petition is therefore rejected. Notice discharged. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)