MANDAKINI K. KOKANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of our order dtd. 27/10/2020 passed in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.5573 of 2020. The review is sought only to the extent of the rejection of prayer clause (a) of the Writ Petition and further prayer is sought that Case No.3809 of 2019 be remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik for consideration of the same afresh by considering additional documents produced by the petitioner. The said prayer clause (a) is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

(2.) We have heard Mr.Satyajeet Dighe, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Sachin Gite, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 and Mr.Yuvraj Patil, learned AGP for the respondent nos.4 to 7.

(3.) It is the main contention of Mr.Dighe that this Court has confirmed the order of the District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nashik dtd. 25/5/2020 in case No.3809 of 2019 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish that the surname Ghotikar and Kokane are of the same family and therefore discarded certain documentary evidence more particularly the document i.e. the entry dtd. 9/7/1893 in the register recording birth and death in the village mouje Sansari, Taluka Nashik, (village form - 14). The said document records that son was born on 9/7/1993 to Bhiva Trimbaka Ghotikar and caste is shown as "Kunbi". The surname of the family of the Petitioner is "Kokane". It is the contention of the Petitioner that surname "Ghotikar" and "Kokane" are of the same family and therefore the reliance is placed on said document dtd. 9/7/1893. We have by our order dtd. 27/10/2020 rejected the said contention.