JUDGMENT Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The petitioner claims himself to be belonging to Mali caste which falls in OBC category. However, his such claim has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee at Akola by a majority vote. The opinion of the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (respondent No.2) dated 11.7.2018, however, is in favour of the petitioner. Two members of the Scrutiny Committee by their separate opinion of the same date diferred from the opinion of the Chairman and by their common opinion, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on the same date. 3. The first objection of the petitioner is that in the two separate opinions expressed by the Chairman and the two other members of the Scrutiny Committee, there is no sharing of views, exchange of thoughts on discussions held in a meeting, and therefore, the dissenting opinions expressed in the Scrutiny Committee do not qualify themselves as "order of the Scrutiny Committee". He places reliance upon the case of Sanjay Bhaskar Raimulkar vs. State of Maharashtra and Others,2017 DGLS(Bom) 314 . Mr. D.P. Thakare, the learned Addl. G.P. appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that, on facts, this case does not apply to the instant matter. 4. In the case of Sanjay Bhaskar Raimulkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (supra), coordinate Bench of this Court has held that, dissenting opinions which expressed without being followed by any discussion held in meeting, and without there being any exchange of thoughts and sharing of views, dissenting opinions would not constitute any "order of the Scrutiny Committee" and the order passed in this manner would only amount to fraud on adjudication and as such unsustainable in the eye of law. However, on going through the two separate opinions, one given by respondent No. 2 and other common opinion given by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, we find on facts that there was indeed sharing of views and sharing of thoughts before the two opinions cannot be expressed by the Chairman and the other two members. This could be easily seen from the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by respondent No.2. 3 and 4, we find on facts that there was indeed sharing of views and sharing of thoughts before the two opinions cannot be expressed by the Chairman and the other two members. This could be easily seen from the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by respondent No.2. It has been clearly mentioned in this order that although, the Chairman was of the view that petitioner succeeded in establishing proof of he belonging to Mali-OBC caste, the other two members decided to write their own opinions. Learned counsel for the petitioner also did not point out to us presence of any material from which an inference of any communication gap between the Chairman on the one hand and two members on the other hand could be inferred. Therefore, as rightly submitted by Mr. D.P. Thakare, the learned AGP, no assistance could be sought by the petitioner from the case of Sanjay Bhaskar Raimulkar vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, and therefore, the arguments made in this regard on behalf of the petitioner is rejected. 5. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner pertains to existence of some documents which were pre-1967 period. However, these documents, admittedly were not produced before the Scrutiny Committee. One new document, however, has been filed along with this petition. This document is on page 50 and it is a copy of "Birth Register" [1] . Bare perusal of the document shows that the Birth Register has been maintained at Police Station, Yavatmal. There is no law which requires that a Birth Register be maintained at a Police Station. Apparently, this is a fraudulent document, and therefore, it cannot be considered. In any case, this document cannot be considered here for the first time, as if this court is a fact finding court. If the petitioner desired to rely on it, he ought to have filed it before the Scrutiny Committee. 6. Now, what remains is the issue regarding existence of other pre-1967 period documents. Admittedly, no documents of such period were produced before the Scrutiny Committee. Although, respondent No. 2 in his separate opinion dated 11.7.2018 has generally stated that there were some documents which indicated the caste of the petitioner as ''Mali'', these documents admittedly were not of the period which was prior to 1967. This fact, however, has been noticed in the separate opinion commonly given by respondent Nos. Although, respondent No. 2 in his separate opinion dated 11.7.2018 has generally stated that there were some documents which indicated the caste of the petitioner as ''Mali'', these documents admittedly were not of the period which was prior to 1967. This fact, however, has been noticed in the separate opinion commonly given by respondent Nos. 3 and 4, and accordingly, it is concluded therein that the petitioner failed in establishing his claim as belonging to "Mali - OBC" caste and rightly so. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed. No costs. Rule discharged.