:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5703 OF 2008 Rohul Dattatray Waghule, .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr C.K.Bhagnoji i/b Mr R.K.Mendadkar, for the petitioner. Mr C.R.Sonawane, AGP, for respondent nos 1,2 and 4. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 06.01.2009. DATE : 06.01.2009. DATE : 06.01.2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 13.3.2008 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune (for short, "the Committee"). The petitioner is claiming social status as Mahadeo Koli. However, we find that the Committee has considered approximately 33 documents either produced by the petitioner and/or the Vigilence Cell. In all those documents, except one, it has been shown that the person named in that document is a Hindu Koli. It is not disputed by the petitioner that they are relatives of the petitioner. Thus, it has been rightly concluded that all the relatives of the petitioner are Hindu Koli. There is a School Leaving Certificate of the father of the :2: :2: :2: petitioner, viz.Dattatray Sitaram Waghule, which states that he belongs to Hindu Mahadeo Koli. However, the Committee has observed that there is a manipulation in the original record of the school and, therefore, the said School Leaving Certificate cannot be taken as a basis to conclude that the petitioner is a Mahadeo Koli. Thus, there are voluminous documents on record to demonstrate that the petitioner is not Mahadeo Koli. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to submit before this Court that the oral evidence has not been considered by the Committee. However, when there is a documentary evidence specifically pointing out that the petitioner and the petitioner’s forefather and relatives are not the Mahadeo Koli. The oral evidence looses its probative value. The oral evidence more particularly does not explain in what manner the Government documents which are on record are incorrect, and unless the petitioner establishes that the documentary evidence on record is improper, unjust and are not relevant for considering the social status of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot succeed on the basis of the oral evidence. The oral evidence must be supportive to the documentary evidence. If the oral evidence is in direct conflict with the documentary evidence, it :3: :3: :3: looses its evidentiary value. Apart from that, if the petitioner claims that he is a Mahadeo Koli, then he must know the traits and customs of his community, the applicant could not explain satisfactorily before the Committee. Thus, the Committee was satisfied from the documentary evidence, oral evidence and the interview with the petitioner that the petitioner does not belong to the Mahadeo Koli, Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, his claim for social status was rejected. We find that the Committee has considered properly the case of the petitioner and thereafter has rejected the claim of the petitioner. No interference is called for. The petition is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)