1 W.P.No.2914.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2914 OF 2009 Smt. Anusaybai W/o Dattatrya Kordewar, Age 37 years, Occupation Household R/o Kinni, Taluka Bhokar, District Nanded. ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary of Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai [Copy served on G. P. Office, High Court Bench at Aurangabad.] 2] The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,Aurangabad Region,Aurangabad through its Member Secretary. 3] The District Collector, Nanded, Tq. and District Nanded. .RESPONDENTS ... Shri.G.N.Chinchaolkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.G.P.for Respondent No.1& 3. Shri U.S.Malte,Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. RESERVED ON: 17TH JUNE, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON: 23RD JUNE, 2010. JUDGMENT :( PER K.K.TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the 2 W.P.No.2914.09 consent of respective counsel of the parties, the petition is taken for hearing and finally heard at the stage of admission. 2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 7th March, 2009 passed by the respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad (Hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) invalidating her tribe claim. 3. The petitioner claims that she belongs to “Mannerwarlu” Caste. Her case has been referred by the Collector Nanded to Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification of claim as belonging to “Mannerwarlu” Scheduled Tribe. 4. The Caste Scrutiny Committee passed the order invalidating the petitioners claim on 27th April, 2007. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in Writ Petition No. 4093 of 2007, on the ground that the Vigilance 3 W.P.No.2914.09 Cell Report was not duly served on the petitioner. This Court, by order dated 16th September, 2008 directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to re- examine the case of the petitioner after giving her an opportunity to place on record her objection-reply to the vigilance Cell Report. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that, she produced in all 26 documents before the Caste Scrutiny Committee in support of her case; that the copies of documents alongwith Vigilance Cell Report are not served on her. The petitioner further submits that she has not been given a chance to rebut the Report of Vigilance Cell and that the Caste Scrutiny Committee did not give her chance to put up or submit her objections to the Vigilance Cell Report. On these grounds the petitioner says that the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is against justice, equity and good conscience and same is liable to be set aside. 4 W.P.No.2914.09 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the Committee has not considered the school record pertaining to her relatives which are at serial Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 wherein casts is mentioned as ‘Mannerwarlu”. Therefore, order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside. 7. It is not possible to accept the submissions made by the petitioner about non supply of police vigilance report and personal hearing. File produced by Mr. Malte, Advocate for respondent No. 2 shows thaT the petitioner filed her reply dated 3rd November, 2008 alongwith new documents before respondent NO.2. The petitioner attended personally for hearing before respondent NO.2 on 26th February 2008 and was given hearing. 8. We heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties. Mr. Malte, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Caste Scrutiny 5 W.P.No.2914.09 Committee produced the file containing the original documents on the basis of which the order dated 7th March,2009 was passed by the Committee. 9. We have perused the entire file. The documents produced by the petitioner on record, pertain to the period from 1984 to 2005, i. e. the period after passing the first Presidential Order, 1950 notifying the Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, these documents could not be considered as conclusive proof to determine the petitioner’s Tribe claim. 10. The extract of the school admission register of the petitioner and her relatives records their caste ‘Mannurwar” in respect of herself, her cousin sister Poshnibai Ganpati Korde and cousin brother Laxman Ganpati Korde. 11. Whereas the documents produced by the petitioner on record shows that the petitioner’s and her cousin sister’s brother’s caste in the 6 W.P.No.2914.09 school register is ‘Mannurwar”. The petitioner has not produced sufficient evidence in support of her claim. The Committee examined these documents, original record and considered the Vigilance Cell Report. The evidence lead by the petitioner could not establish her tribe to be as ‘Mannerwarlu”. Hence, the committee held that the petitioner could not satisfy affinity test. 12. Considering the record placed before us and the observations made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, we do not find any glaring serious error or apparent mistake in the conclusion reached by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK 7 W.P.No.2914.09