SANDESH YASHWANT KATWATE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondents waive service. By consent taken up for hearing and final disposal forthwith.

(2.) ON 4/08/1994, the Executive Magistrate, Alibag, District Raigad granted a caste certificate to the petitioner certifying that he belongs to the mahadeo Koli Community which is designated as a Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Panvel Municipal Council on 5/12/1995. The caste certificate was referred for verification to the Committee for scrutiny and verification of tribe claims, Konkan Division. An enquiry was ordered to be conducted by the vigilance cell attached to the Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Cell examined the school records and other relevant material in relation to the claim of the petitioner to belong to the mahadeo Koli Community and submitted its report. A copy of the report was forwarded to the petitioner and by a notice dated 2/08/1999 he was given an opportunity of furnishing his response. The petitioner filed his reply by a letter dated 7/11/1999, whereafter he was also given an opportunity of a personal hearing. The Scrutiny Committee passed an order on 25/03/2001 after hearing the petitioner. By that order, which is impugned in these proceedings, the Scrutiny Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner to belong to the Mahadeo Koli Community. The Scrutiny committee has found that all the relevant entries in the school records between 1928 and 1950 pertaining to the great grand father, grand father, father and uncles of the petitioner show them as Kolis or Sonkolis. In the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to the Mahadeo Koli scheduled Tribe has been rejected.

(3.) THE Scrutiny Committee has in arriving at the finding that the petitioner does not belong to the Mahadeo Koli Community, acted on the basis of the material on the record. An enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Cell which revealed that entries in the school records dating back to 1928 of the great grand father of the petitioner belied the claim that the petitioner belongs to the M-ahadeo Koli Community. The entries which related to the great grand father, grand father, father and uncles of the petitioner relate to the period from 1928 to 1950. The Committee was, therefore, justified in placing reliance on those entries which were of significant probative value. This Court is not a Court of Appeal over findings of fact which have been arrived at by the scrutiny Committee, that position being settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Madliuripatil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, 1995 (2) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)690 : 1994 (6) S. C. C. 241. In fairness, it must be stated that no serious attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to challenge the finding of the Scrutiny Committee in the submissions urged by Counsel be-fore this Court.