2. In this petition service on the respondents 2 to 4 is not necessary as those are proforma parties. The petitioner challenges the order of Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Division Amravati (for short described as the Scrutiny Committee) delivered on 17-2-2007 Annexure-XXII. invalidating his claim as ‘Thakur’ Scheduled Tribe.

3. Heard Learned Advocate Mr. Ram Parsodkar for the petitioner and the Learned Advocate Mr. Sudhir M. Puranik for the respondent No.1.

4. It is seen that the petitioner had furnished before the respondent No.1. in all 20 documents. Out of those, the documents at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14 and 16 to 20 (Total 13 in number) are of recent origin do not prove status of forefathers of the petitioner as belonging to Scheduled Tribe ‘Thakur.’

5. Other documents are referable to period, which is prior to 1966. The Vigilance Cell conducted enquiry and gave report to following effect:-

A) The old documents in respect of paternal relatives of the applicants show his caste as Thakur.

B) The information regarding traits characteristics, Gods, Goddesses, surnames, festival, traditions, customs, songs, dances of the applicants family do not resemble to those of Thakur Scheduled Tribe, and thus his affinity is not proved towards Thakur.

Scheduled Tribe.

[Quoted from page 103 of Paper Book of Writ Petition]

6. Petitioner furnished written representation objecting to the report of the Vigilance Cell. Relevant portion whereof is at page 76 of the writ petition paper book. Its true translation whereof reads as follows:

“However, since the Committee was not satisfied, above information was asked by conducting home enquiry from me and my brother. At that time, my brother and myself also told the information about the social status and culture of our family practiced during 100 to 150 in past and having received it from my grandfather from his father and by my father from his father and I myself from my father as we have experienced in the marriage ceremony, as it was then performed. However, it seems that Vigilance Cell Officer Shri R.D. Chatjan was not satisfied.

As on date, since we are living in City, we have come into contact with other communities we have started worshiping Hindu God and Goddesses and their photography are there in our house. This itself was objected by Vigilance Cell and Research Officer and a remark was passed to the effect that culture traits do not tally with those of Thakur Tribe as were recorded after study. In fact, whatever we have stated is the social status and culture of the “Thakur” Tribe it was based on the information about Thakur Scheduled Tribe, available with them. The Vigilance Cell and Research Officer should have verified it and then should have made the observation thereon. However, without doing so imaginary adverse remark is passed which is wrong and is not in accordance with law and hence, is not acceptable to me. In fact, when I have submitted concrete evidence of revenue record prior to 1950 and statement of my father (who is aged 65 years), which is in fact correct statement, decision on merit needs to be taken and a validity certificate should be issued in my favour.”

7. The Committee framed issues which are quoted below along with Committee's findings:

Sr. No. Issues Findings No

1. Whether the claim of the present applicant is No

proved by way of documentary evidence?

2. Whether the claim of the applicant sustains

by way of affinity test? No

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to Scheduled

Tribe status as per current legal position? No

4. What order As per final order

given below.

[Quoted fro