1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO.7398 OF 2007 Vivek Ananda Chaudhary - - - - Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others. - - Respondents Shri K. M. Nagarkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.1. Shri M. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 1st July 2009 ORAL ORDER [ Per NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the documents placed on record were not considered by the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell report is in favour of the petitioner. The documentary evidence was brushed aside by the Committee stating to be of no evidentiary value. Much reliance is placed on entries of earlier years. The Committee failed to appreciate the judgments reported by this Court which are placed on record by the Counsel. 2 2. Learned Counsel Shri M.S. Deshmukh appearing for the Committee submitted that the Vigilance Cell report is not in favour of the petitioner. It is specifically pointed out that in the School Leaving Certificate of petitioner's father Shri Ananda Lotu Chaudhary issued by the Head Master his caste was referred as "Hindu Suryawanshi Koli". The said document pertains to the period 1962. The original copy of birth and death register in respect of petitioner's grand father Lotu Sakharam Koli issued by Tahsildar, Raver mentions his caste recorded as "Koli". This document is of the year 1915. Original birth and death register in respect of petitioner's uncle Budha Lotu Koli issued by the Tahsildar, Raver which is of the year 1938 also records his caste as "Koli". The learned Counsel pointed out that in a communication made on 25-9-2006, the petitioner himself had accepted the Vigilance Cell report. The Vigilance Cell report states that uncle of the petitioner and grand father both were "Koli", according to the record available with the Vigilance Cell Officer. We have perused these Vigilance Cell reports and the reply filed by the petitioner and the Order of the Committee. Learned Counsel has placed on record, by way of amendment, certain judgments and added certain more grounds. We have perused the same. We find that the old record goes contrary to the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to "Tokre Koli". We do not have any doubt that other entries from the old record relate to petitioner's father and other close relatives. Implicit reliance can be placed on such entries to appreciate the case of the petitioner. The Committee has, therefore, considered the 3 case of the petitioner in the light of the record which is made available and the evidence laid by the petitioner. We find that the Committee has rightly evaluated the evidence on record and the inquiry report submitted by the Vigilance Cell. 3. Considering the reasoning of the Committee and the material placed on record, we find that there is no merit in this petition. Petition is dismissed. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL, J. ) pnk/wp739807