1 WP No.2772/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2772 of 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1217 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2772 of 2010 Mallesha Sidhhanna Koli ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. R.K.Mendadkar for the petitioner. Mr. S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Ms.Neeta Karnik for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 7th September 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 30th March 2009 holding that the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Mahadeo Koli Schedule Tribe is not valid. The Scrutiny Committee has referred to entry about the real brother of the petitioner that he belongs to Other Backward Class. The two cousins of the petitioner are Hindu Koli. Vigilance Cell report was called by the Scrutiny Committee. The vigilance cell report is against the petitioner. He submitted his explanation on 10th November 2006, 2 WP No.2772/10 buy did not produce any documents. The Scrutiny Committee after perusing the record has recorded that the petitioner does not belong to Mahadeo Koli Schedule Tribe. The Scrutiny Committee has also applied the affinity test. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the matter was fixed for hearing on 20th March 2009 before the Scrutiny Committee. Matter was adjourned at his request to 30th March 2009. However, the order was passed on 20th March 2009. Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee pointing out that the date of the order is mentioned wrongly as “20th March 2009”. It is in fact “30th March 2009”. The petitioner has filed a Civil Application and along with Civil Application, he has produced a school leaving certificate of one Bannappa Laxman Koli who he claims to be his uncle. The caste of Bannappa is shown as Mahadeo Koli and the entry is of the year 1939. This certificate is issued on 6th January 2010. This certificate admittedly was not produced before the scrutiny committee, was also not produced when the petitioner filed his reply after he was served with the report of the vigilance cell. This document cannot be taken into consideration at this stage because an enquiry into the facts will have to be held. 2. Taking an overall view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere. Petition is rejected. 3. Civil application No.1217/10 is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J)