1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2542 OF 2008 ... Dr.Vishal Prakash Thakur ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondent ... Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar with Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.N.P.Pandit, AGP for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 14th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe 2 Claims, Committee dated 28-5-2004 holding that the Petitioner does not belong to Thakur scheduled Tribe. 2. By our order passed today in Writ Petition No.7116 of 2004, we have held that the Petitioner in that petition , who admittedly is a real brother of the Petitioner does not belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe and the conclusion reached by the Scrutiny Committee in that regard is not liable to interfered with. So far as this petition is concerned, the only contention raised is that in this case the report from the Vigilance Cell was called, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report and this report is also relied on by the Scrutiny Committee in the case of the Petitioner s brother. But copy of that report was not supplied by the Scrutiny Committee to the Petitioner. 3 3. In our opinion, even assuming that a copy of that report was not supplied to the Petitioner, the conclusion reached by the Scrutiny Committee that the Petitioner has failed to prove that he does belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe cannot be faulted. If, according to the Petitioner that report was necessary, he could have asked the Scrutiny Committee to supply him that report. The report admittedly was supplied to the brother of the Petitioner when his claim was decided. Therefore, the Petitioner could have obtained a copy of that report if that was relevant to the case of the Petitioner from his brother. What is further pertinent to note is that the present petition and the petition filed by the brother of the Petitioner are filed by the same lawyer. In our opinion, if the Petitioner wanted to deal with that report, 4 he could have dealt with that report even in this petition. But that was not done precisely, so that the Petitioner could have argued in this case that non-supply of a copy of the report vitiates the order. In our opinion, the material available on record clearly indicates that no fault can be found with the order of the Scrutiny Committee, especially in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shilva Vishnu Thakur v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2009(3) Mh.L.J., 995 . We see no substance in the petition. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)