1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3348 OF 2008 Kiran Martand Deore @ Sonia Kishorkumar Rajwade. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.R.K.Mendadkar, for Petitioner. Mr.V.A.Gangal, Special Counsel @ Mr.S.S.Deshmukh, Mr.Ashok Gade & Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 5th December,2009 P.C.:- 1. The petitioner by this petition challenges the order dated 14.5.2007 passed by the Scrutiny committee holding that the caste claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribe, is not valid. 2 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. Perused the record. The claim of the petitioner has been held invalid by the Scrutiny Committee mainly on applying affinity test and finding has been recorded that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy the affinity test. Because of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case Shilpa Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2009(3) Bom.C.R. 497 now the law is settled so far as this Court is concerned that the Scrutiny committee is justified in applying the affinity test. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submits that though the conclusion has been recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the answers given by the petitioner and his father to the questionnaire shows that he does not belong to Thakur, Scheduled Tribe, the Scrutiny committee has not given reasons why it has raised that questions. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for respondents. We find that the nature of 3 questionnaire is such that perusal of answers given to that questionnaire are enough for the Scrutiny Committee to record its conclusion. Considering that the Scrutiny committee has been constituted by the Government pursuant to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case Madhuri Patil Vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, 1994(6) SCC 241 and it consists of experts who have knowledge of the subject, in our opinion, when the Scrutiny committee refers to the answers given to the questionnaire and when the questionnaire has been framed by the experts so as to solicite the information to record the conclusion, interference at the hands of this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the conclusion reached on merit by the Scrutiny Committee is not warranted. The petition is, therefore, rejected. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)