Madhuri Patil vs . Additional Commissioner, Tribal ... on 22 July, 2005
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that all these vital
pieces of evidence have been rejected by the caste scrutiny
committee primarily on the ground that no reference to caste
entries was found in the documents except description as Muslim or
Musalmaan. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that it is settled
law as held by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10577 of 2013 that in
the case of Muslims, the affinity test is necessary as there is no
likelihood to be found in caste entries in their documents and
therefore, affinity to Gavali community as testified in the
Nikita Gadgil 4 of 22
5 Judgment-WP 1401-18.odt
statements recorded in the inquiry report dated 22 nd February 2017
submitted by the Vigilance Cell to the respondent no.2- committee
as well as the agreements dated 21st September 1959 and 17th April
1958 was conclusive to show that the petitioner's cousin
grandfather was selling milk to the hotels etc. and ought to have
been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel
further submits that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner,
Tribal, (1994 SCC (6) 241), the respondent no.2- Committee ought
to have directed the vigilance officer to record statement of
petitioner or his family members with respect to the affinity
towards the Gavali community as is required when there are no
documents to show caste.