1 wp1534.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1534 OF 2010 _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | orders or | Court's or Judge's Orders directions and | Registrar's orders | _________________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V. B. Ghadge, A.G.P. for respondent/State. Shri R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date : 1st July, 2011. . The petitioner has approached this Court, contending that his tribe claim has been wrongly rejected by the Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, his uncle (father's brother), and his cousins have all been issued the validity certificates, indicating that they belong to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. 2. We have perused the documents produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee, with the assistance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner. In our opinion, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee cannot be faulted. The document, which purports to be a sale deed in Urdu, the translation of which is also annexed to the Petition, is of the year 1944. The Committee has 2 wp1534.10 rejected this document on the ground that the noting therein regarding the caste is made in the following manner : " Note purchaser Chotelal s/o Tuljaram Rathod religion Hindu Thakur, residence of Dharmabad. Presently residing at Adhivasi Basti. Risala, his occupation/ profession is sells Animal oil and Birboti." 3. The Committee has held that the note is doubtful because it is a public document and the ink used for the note is different from the rest of contents of the document. It is in these circumstances, that document has been rejected. We do not find this ground for rejection of the claim to be unreasonable. 4. Furthermore, the Committee has considered the fact that the petitioner's caste was recorded as "Rathod" whereas his father's caste is recorded as the "Rajput" in their respective School records. No other documents have been produced by the petitioner which indicate that the petitioner belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled Tribe. Several documents, which were produced by the petitioner, have been considered in their proper perspective by the Committee. The submission on behalf 3 wp1534.10 of the petitioner is that since his uncle Laxmichand was issued a validity certificate, he was also entitled to the same. Besides Laxmichand's daughter-Deepa has also been issued a validity certificate. The Committee has considered these facts and has rightly held that merely because one member of the family is issued the caste validity certificate, it would not necessarily mean that the other member should be issued the same. The Committee has taken a note of the fact that Laxmichand's Affidavit, which was produced on record was a photocopy and the genealogy was not produced on record. Therefore, the Committee has discarded this affidavit. 5. In our opinion, cogent reasons have been given by the Scrutiny Committee for rejecting the documents produced by the petitioner in support of his claim that he belongs to the "Thakur" Scheduled tribe. We have perused the documents and considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. We do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Petition rejected. ( M. T. JOSHI, J. ) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J) ga s/wp1534.10