1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5225/2009 PETITIONER : Shri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rauf, age : Adult, occu: businessman, R/o Habib Nagar No.1, Walgaon Road, Amravati, Tq. & Dist. Amravati. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Social Welfare Deptt. Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032. 2. The Schedued Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division, Amravati. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.D. Bhuibhar, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.W. Sambre, Government Pleader for the respondents. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : JANUARY 21, 2010. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER: FEBRUARY 02, 2010. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the judgment passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati on 31.03.2009 rejecting the caste claim of the petitioner. 2 The petitioner filed an application before the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati for verification of his caste claim to BHAINA Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner produced the documents before the Committee and the vigilance enquiry was conducted. It was found by the Vigilance Committee that all the old entries in respect of the petitioner's relatives were not genuine as they were made in a different handwriting and different ink. The photocopies of the register showing the entries were produced before the Committee by the Vigilance Officer and the Committee, on an examination of the photocopies and the copies produced by the petitioner before the Committee, found that the entries were manipulated and they could not have been relied upon. Some of the other documents produced by the petitioner before the Committee showed that the caste of the petitioner's relatives was recorded as Muslim or Musalman. These documents, according to the Committee, clearly disproved the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, the Committee found that the petitioner claimed to belong to BHAINA Scheduled Tribe and the certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate certified that the petitioner belonged to BAYANA Scheduled Tribe. 3 The petitioner was not able to prove his affinity with BHAINA Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner had stated that his mother tongue was Hindi and he worshiped Pir Baba. He stated that he celebrated the festivals which were celebrated by the Muslims and there was a practice of burying the dead. These, according to the Committee, were not the traits of BHAINA Scheduled Tribe and the information clearly revealed that the petitioner did not have any affinity to BHAINA Scheduled Tribe. It appears, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order dated 31.03.2009, that the finding of fact recorded by the Committee is based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and is not liable to be interfered with. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE APTE