1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6357 of 2006 Vijaysingh Jukumsingh Banafer ..vs.. State of Mah. and ors. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.S.R.Narnaware Adv.for the petitioner. Mr.S.M.Puranik Adv. for respondent no.2. C ORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 11th October, 2010. Heard. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge order dated 30th October, 1998 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur. This writ petition was filed in this court against the said order on 7/12/2006 i.e. after eight years. Mr.Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that since the petitioner received show cause notice in the matter of termination of his service for the first time in the year 2006, he filed the present writ petition in the year 2006. We do not think this reason can be said to be satisfactory, particularly when the petitioner was a party to the proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee throughout till making of the order by the Committee. Even on merit, we find that the impugned order is assailed by Mr.Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that 2 the only reason given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is that document nos.2 to 4 filed by the petitioner before the Committee were not prior to issuance of the Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 and therefore, same were not considered. Relying on the decision of this court in the case of Chetan s/o Chandrashekhar Swami ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors., reported in 2009(1) ALL MR 741, he argued that the Committee cannot abdicate its function of analysing the documents filed before it even if those documents are post Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950. Having heard Mr.Narnaware and having seen documents shown to us by him, we find that all these documents indicate the caste as Thakur. However, we find that the petitioner failed to tender any evidence to show that the caste Thakur mentioned in the documents is Scheduled Tribe - Thakur. In the absence of any evidence to that effect and in the light of the decision reported in 2007(3) Mh.L.J.308 (Murlidhar Ramkrishna Ghate ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and ors.), the caste claim made by the petitioner has rightly been negatived by the Committee. In the result, we find no error with the Caste Scrutiny Committee in making impugned order. We, therefore, dismiss, the present writ petition with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc 3