1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5099 OF 2007 Sheshant Deepak Mulke .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri R. K. Mendadkar, for the petitioner Shri V. A. Sonpal, AGP for the Respondent CORAM : J.N. PATEL & SMT. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 9th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER: ( Per J. N. Patel, J. ) 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Scrutiny Committee) rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the decision of the Deputy Collector (CFC) vide order dated 30.6.2003 and 13.1.2004 rejecting the application of the petitioner to issue caste certificate as belonging to caste Mannewar which “ ” is recognised as ST at Item No. 18 in the Schedule. The Scrutiny Committee found that except certain certificates depicting caste of the petitioner and his father, there is no other documentary proof sufficient to show that the petitioner belongs to caste Mannewar - S. T. Grand father of the petitioner viz. Gopalswami who was railway employee is not able to produce any document 2 to show that his caste was recorded as Mannewar either in his birth certificate, service record or pension paper. Not only this, the Scrutiny Committee has also considered the particulars furnished by the petitioner with respect to their traits, characteristics and customs of the tribe i.e. Mannewar. But whatever information was furnished by the appellant s’ grandfather i.e. Gopalswami who has retired from the Central Railway did not associate with that of Mannewar (ST), which clearly shows that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish either by leading documentary evidence or other evidence to support his claim that he belongs to Caste Mannewar. 3. Insofar as the school leaving certificate is concerned, it has been issued in the year 1981, which is on the basis of caste certificate obtained by the grandfather of the petitioner i.e. Gopalswami s/o Pentanna Mulke from the Tahsildar & Executive Magistrate, Akola on the basis of an application, affidavit and Ward Member s Certificate. ’ 4. Learned Counsel Shri Mendadadkar appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Respondent Scrutiny committee has ignored the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Manna Adim Jamat & others reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 98 wherein, the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down that the caste claim of a ’ person has to be assessed separately as all the castes mentioned in Entry-18 3 of the Schedule are distinct and separate tribes and not sub tribe of Gond. Mr. Mendadkar has pointed out to us that in 1967, caste Mannerwar came to be included in the Schedule and the Act and find place at entry No.18 and the Scrutiny Committee was probably influenced by the fact that the caste- Mannewar should have affinity to Gond as in their order they have observed that the Mannewar Community which comes under Schedule-18 (Main Tribe Gond ). We do not find that this contention can be accepted and that the “ ” Scrutiny Committee has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for the said reason as at Sr. No. 18 Gond is mentioned first in the entry and thus, by way of reference, the Scrutiny Committee has noted this as main tribe Gond. But, nowhere in the impugned order there were any reference that the petitioner has failed to show any affinity towards Gond tribe. Therefore, the decision relied upon by Mr. Mendadkar does not apply to this case. 5. The Petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. ( MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( J. N. PATEL, J.).