1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PEITITION NO: 5036/2006 ( Hari Chandrabhan Raut vs. Committee for Scrutiny & Verification of Tribe Claims Amravati and others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr V.A Kothale Adv.for petitioner Mr. P B Patil Adv.for R-1 Mr. M P Badar for R-2,3 CORAM: A .M.KHANWILKAR AND S.R.DONGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 09th June, 2008. *** 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner accepts the position that 'affinity test' parameter be invoked while examining the caste claim of a candidate. According to him, however, the Scrutiny Committee has not examined that aspect at all in the decision which is impugned in this Writ Petition. 3. We find no merit in this contention. The Scrutiny Committee decision plainly refers to the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell which has collected relevant material regarding 'affinity test' in respect of caste claim of petitioner. Besides, the Committee has considered the said material, as can be discerned from the discussion in paragraph 6 in particularly clause (e) of the impugned decision. It is not a case where relevant material has been 2 overlooked by the Scrutiny committee. 4. To get over this position, counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was not furnished with the Vigilance Cell report to which reference is made by the Scrutiny Committee in para no.6 of the impugned decision. This contention is without any substance. On the contrary, we find from the contemporaneous documents on record that the petitioner received communication dated 9th September 2005 along with which the said report was forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has received that communication which fact is indisputable. For, the petitioner himself has sent reply on 24th September, 2005 to the committee, with reference to the said communication. However, the said communication dated 9th September 2005 has not been annexed by the petitioner to this Writ Petition. We had the opportunity of peruse the original documents in the file made available for our perusal. The said document additionally refers to all the relevant aspects stated in the said Vigilance Cell report which has been incorporated in the communication sent to the petitioner, calling upon him to respond. In response thereto, the petitioner has submitted detailed reply. In the circumstances, the argument of the petitioner that the said communication though delivered to the petitioner was not accompanied by the Vigilance Cell report only deserves to be stated, to be rejected. 3 5. Learned counsel for petitioner would, then, contend that one of the cousin brothers of the petitioner, who is residing in the neighbouring District Amravati -Mr.Balaskar, belongs to “Bopchi” (Scheduled Tribe), which claim has been accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. Even this contention will have to be turned down having regard to the finding noted in the Vigilance Cell report. It is mentioned that the relations of the petitioner themselves amongst others, maternal uncle, made statement that they belong to “Maratha” community. The Scrutiny Committee has relied on material made available to it by the Vigilance Cell which clearly establishes that the petitioner does not belong to “Bopchi” (ST), as has been found by the Committee. We find no reason to depart from the said opinion. The fact that (erroneous) certificate has been issued to one of the cousin brothers of the petitioner cannot be the basis for the petitioner to seek similar benefit. It is a different matter that the Scrutiny Committee has not taken appropriate action in respect of the said certificate. However, we leave that aspect to be examined by the Scrutiny Committee, if so advised. 6. Suffice it to observe that this petition is devoid of merits. Dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare