1 rpwst19751.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE REVIEW PETITION (STAMP) NO.19751 OF 2010 In WRIT PETITION NO.3175 OF 2010 Shri Rajendra Uttam Gaikwad : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for the respondents. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JULY 15, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondents. 2. This Review Petition is preferred by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 22.6.2010 whereby Writ Petition No.3175 of 2010 came to be dismissed. 3. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee vide order dated 27.1.2010, being aggrieved by the 2 rpwst19751.10 same, the Review Petition is filed for recalling the order passed in said Writ Petition. It is further contended that it is no doubt true that the documents pertaining to cousin grandfathers, grandfather, grandfather's sister, aunt and uncle which were placed before the Caste Scrutiny Committee were considered by this Court and the caste mentioned therein was either Kunbi, Marathi or Maratha. However, after the Writ Petition came to be disposed of by this Court, the petitioner came across a very old document i.e. extract of Birth and Death Register dated 28.4.1872 pertaining to one Babaji Vithuji Gaikwad who was the great great grandfather of the petitioner wherein the caste is mentioned as “Thakar”. It is, therefore, contended that if the Asstt. Govt. Pleader is asked to verify the genuineness of the document through Police Vigilance Cell and if the document is found to be genuine and correct, then appropriate direction in this regard may be given to the Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the caste claim of the petitioner afresh. 4. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader, on the other hand, has submitted that the review petitioner neither placed this document before the Caste Scrutiny Committee nor at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition before this Court and, therefore, it could not be referred to the Vigilance Cell for verification. 3 rpwst19751.10 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order passed. In the instant case, as we have already observed hereinabove, it is not disputed that in the documents of close relatives placed on record of the Scrutiny Committee by the review petitioner, the caste mentioned therein is either Kunbi, Marathi or Maratha. It is not in dispute that the document alleged to be of the great great grandfather of the petitioner of the year 1872 was neither placed before the Committee nor placed before this Court at the time of hearing of the Writ Petition. Since the document was not placed before the Committee, the same could not be referred to the Police Vigilance Cell for home inquiry and in the absence thereof, the order of the Scrutiny Committee, according to us, was just and proper and the same was rightly confirmed by the impugned order dated 22.6.2010. 6. We are afraid that the request of the learned Senior Advocate for referring this document at such a belated stage, once again, to the Police Vigilance Cell, will not be possible to entertain, particularly because it is difficult for us to ascertain even prima facie whether the said document factually pertains to the grandfather of the petitioner. Similarly, in view of the limited review jurisdiction this Court enjoys, no case is made out 4 rpwst19751.10 for showing indulgence. 7. Review Petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (SMT.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)