1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2607 OF 2010 Dhondi S. Palre ....Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.R.K. Mendadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 7TH APRIL, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsel for the parties. This Petition takes exception to the decision of the Scrutiny Committee in invaliditing the caste claim of the Petitioner as belonging to Thakar Scheduled Tribe. The Committee has found as a fact, that the Petitioner has merely relied on the documents which indicates that he belongs to Thakar community. However, that would not be sufficient to decide the claim of the Petitioner. The Committee has found that the Petitioner has not submitted any document which would persuade the Committee to accept the caste claim of the Petitioner. It therefore, proceeded to consider the matter on the basis of the affinity test. The Committee has adverted to the information furnished by the 1 2 Petitioner’s father in that behalf. On analyzing the same, the Committee has found as a fact that in the instant case, the Petitioner has not been able to prove his affinity towards Thakar Scheduled Tribe as such. That is the finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by this Court. 2. The counsel for the Petitioner however, contends that the impugned decision does not take into account the opinion of Professor R.K. Mutatkar, which is stated in his report at Exhibit “K” to this Petition. According to the Petitioner, this was placed before the Committee along with the explanation dated 29.1.2004, but has not been referred to or considered in the impugned decision. The fact that the Petitioner had filed the explanation on 29.1.2004 has been duly adverted by the Committee in the decision. The Committee has examined the matter in detail also considering the legal position expounded in the decisions referred to. The Committee however, as a fact, has held that the Petitioner has failed to establish the affinity test that he belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe as such. In this view of the matter, the caste claim of the Petitioner came to be rejected. 2. We find no infirmity in the approach of the Committee which has considered all aspects of the matter and the material produced before it as can be seen from the impugned decision. To get over this, the Petitioner contends that in the light of the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sayanna v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. dated 15.9.2009 in Civil Appeal No.6253 of 2009, the Committee could not have invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner merely on the finding that the Petitioner was unable 2 3 to establish the affinity test. The fact finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee, which would bind us, is that the Petitioner has failed to establish the affinity test that he belongs to Thakar Scheduled Tribe as such. The mere fact that the discription of the community of the Petitioner and his relatives has been shown as Thakar by itself may not be enough . 3. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed. At this stage, Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the protection available to the Petitioner be continued for another four weeks, so that the Petitioner can carry the matter in Appeal, if so advised. We have no difficulty in acceding to this request. However, continuation of the interim relief in favour of the Petitioner would not create any right or it will not be open to the Petitioner to claim equities at a later point of time. (R.M. SAVANT, J.) (A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 3