ARUN BHAURAO INGALE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court in Pandurang Ranganath chavan vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 1998 (2) Mh. L. J. 806, Chandrakant bajirao Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2003 (2) Mh. L. J. 471 and unreported judgments of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2745 of 1988, Ravi prakash Babulalsing Parmar vs. State of Maharashtra and others decided on 28th July, 2003, [since reported in 2004 (1) Mh. L. J. 177] and Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2004 and companion writ petitions, Amol Narayan Wakkar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, decided on 14th September, 2004, [since reported in 2005 (1) Mh. L. J. 798] the impugned order of the Caste Scrutiny committee dated 10th February, 2003 cannot be sustained. The Scrutiny committee observed in its order as under :

(2.) THE Scrutiny Committee then went on examining various other aspects including affinity test, ethnic linkage and socio-cultural traits of the petitioner to find out whether the petitioner belongs to "thakur Scheduled Tribe" and ultimately held that the petitioner does not belong to "thakur Scheduled Tribe" and held his caste claim as invalid.

(3.) WE may quote with approval the following passage from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Chandrakant (supra) wherein Division bench had an occasion to consider an identical issue which is posed before us.