: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6447 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6447 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.6447 OF 2008 Subhash Kanta Sawant ...Petitioner. V/s. Caste Certificate Verification Committee & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Shrihari Anney, Senior Counsel with Shri L.M.Acharya , advs. for the Petitioner. Mr.A.J.Bhor, adv. for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mrs.J.S.Pawar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 & 4. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar & C.K.Bhangoji with Mrs.Helen Mandlik & Vishnu Madne, advs. for the Respondent No.5. CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 1st October, 2008. DATE : 1st October, 2008. DATE : 1st October, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Petitioner was elected as a Municipal Corporator in the Bombay Municipal Corporation on a seat reserved for Other Backward Classes. He had obtained certificate that he belongs to Other Backward Classes, which was subjected to the scrutiny before the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. Initially the caste certificate was validated by the Committee but the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee by virtue of its order dated 30th May, 2007 cancelled the certificate of the petitioner. That order of the Committee came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.4336 of 2007. That Writ Petition was decided by this : 2 : Court by an order dated 25.2.2008. This Court, after setting aside the order of the Committee, remanded the case back to the Committee for denovo enquiry. One of the arguments before Division Bench of this Court was that since the Caste Scrutiny Committee had issued a certificate, it could not recall the certificate as it did not have powers of review or recall. After the remand, the Committee again passed an order dated 2.9.2008 cancelling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the appropriate authority, this order is under challenge before this Court. 2. Only two contentions are raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner to challenge the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. As contended in earlier writ petition, he contended that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no power of review. Second submission is that there was Government Resolution dated 20th June, 2008, which had bearing on the case but was not taken into consideration by the Committee. The learned senior counsel has not however argued before this Court on the merits of the order passed by the Committee. The first contention raised by the learned senior counsel cannot be entertained now by this Court at this stage because this is only of academic interest to examine whether the power is vested with the Committee to review its order or not because the : 3 : order passed by the Committee under the powers of the review has already been quashed by this Court in earlier writ petition and the matter was remanded back to the Committee and the order presently impugned and passed by the committee is on the basis of remand order passed by the High Court. 3. Coming to the second submission that the Government Resolution was not taken into consideration, this G.R. mainly lays down that whether the persons are shown as Vani or Vaishya or Vaishyavani, they all have to be treated as Other Backward Class, being ’Vaishyavanis’. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was shown in the records either as Vaishya or Vani or Vaishyavani, therefore, it was immaterial whether he was shown as Vaishya, Vani or Vaishyavani. In any case, he belongs to the backward community in view of this G.R. There would be no difficulty in accepting this argument but the Committee has given finding that the petitioner did not belong to any of these three categories and these findings are based on evidence, particularly, the evidence produced by the petitioner himself. Even close relatives like sister and cousin of the petitioner deposed before the Committee that they and their family originally belonged to Goa and did not belong to any of these three castes. The record reveals that the petitioner has submitted school : 4 : leaving certificate of his father from village:Nagdive, Taluka:Kankavli, District: Sindhudurg and also he showed the relationship with some persons from that village to indicate that he belongs to O.B.C. However, after minute perusal of the record, the Scrutiny Committee came to conclusion that the school record of his father from the school at Nagdive is false and bogus and has been created sometimes in 1998. From the admissions of his sister and cousin, it is also noted that persons from Nagdive, who are from O.B.C., are not related to the petitioner. On careful perusal of the record, we do not find the findings of the Committee either perverse or based on no evidence, therefore, there is no reason for us to intervene in the findings given on the facts by the Committee. Last submission made was that opportunity of meeting the case was not given to the petitioner by the Committee and that he had applied for certain material, which was collected by the Committee and copy of which was made available to the petitioner on 28th August but hearing was started on the same date. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the material was given on 26th August and hearing started on 29th August. As the question of adducing the evidence for getting validation of caste certificate is always related to the person, who claims caste certificate, onus is on him to prove that he belongs to Vaishya or Vani or Vaishyavani. Particularly onus is not on other side to : 5 : disprove the case. Normally there are no rivals in such proceeding. However, in this proceeding there were rivals. Petitioner had to lose seat to which he was elected on the basis that he belonged to certain caste and therefore, if the material, which was collected by the Committee either on its own or at the behest of the respondent no.5, is not taken into consideration, even then the petitioner has not himself proved that he belongs to the caste of Vaishyavani. Besides we do not find from the record that any request was made to the Committee at all that time should be given to the petitioner to meet evidence that was collected by the Committee. 4. We do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There was request for extension of stay. We decline to grant any stay as this matter has already seen number of litigations. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)