1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6335 OF 2009 Sudhakar s/o Pandit Patil, Age: 40 years, Occ: Social Worker, R/o. Tilaknagar, Jalgaon Road, Sillod, Tal. Sillod, District Aurangabad. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, CIDCO, N-4, B-26, Aurangabad through its Secretary. 3. Smt. Nafisa Begam w/o Abdul Sattar, Age: 45 years, President, Municipal Council, Sillod, R/o. Snehanagar, Behind Police Station, Sillod, Tal. Sillod, District Aurangabad. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate holding for Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.B. Khandare, G.P. for Resp.Nos.1 & 2. Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate with Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... 2 CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has primarily challenged the caste validity certificate given by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 10-06-2003, in favour of respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, the said certificate has been issued due to fraudulent representation made by respondent No. 3 before the Committee. The petitioner relies on the documents which are appended to this 3 petition to contend that the caste of respondent No. 3 has always been mentioned as "Muslim", in the school record, as also in the service record of respondent No.3's father. Even the record pertaining to respondent No.3's brother would indicate that his caste was mentioned as "Muslim". Reliance is also placed on the report of the Social Welfare Officer dated 1-2/3/2000 which according to the petitioner, makes adverse comments relating to the caste claim of respondent No.3. In spite of such material available on record, the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the impugned decision granted the caste validity certificate in favour of respondent No.3. Notably, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has not bothered to analysis even one single document which respondent No. 3 had pressed into service and was the basis to persuade the Caste Scrutiny Committee to accept the caste claim of respondent No.3. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 4 petitioner has placed reliance on the unreported decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Nisha Tukaram Sonawane Vs. Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar and others, in Writ Petition No. 412 of 2009 decided on 22-07-2009 as well as in the case of Pashamiya Khajamiya Attar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, reported in 2008(6) Bom.C.R. 248, which has taken the view that it is obligatory on the part of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to record the speaking order, after analysing efficacy of the document pressed into service. In the present case, the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 10-06-2003 does not record any reason whatsoever but only notes the conclusion reached by the Committee to validate the caste claim of respondent No.3. 4. Counsel for respondent No. 3, on instructions, in all fairness, submitted that respondent No. 3 will have no objection if the 5 mater is sent back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for re-consideration afresh and for recording the reasons for the conclusion that it would eventually reach, provided the validity certificate already issued in favour of respondent No. 3 is not disturbed till the final decision is reached by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Ordinarily, when the Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the same cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny being a non speaking order, the validity certificate so issued ought to be set aside and the parties would be relegated before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for fresh inquiry. However, in the present case, we are inclined to depart from the said course for more than one reason. Firstly, the caste validity certificate has been issued as back as in the year 2003. Secondly, respondent No. 3 is presently elected representative and is occupying the post of President of Municipal Council, Sillod, which is 6 a reserved post on the basis that she belongs to reserved category. If the validity certificate is to be set aside, that may have direct bearing on her continuation as President of the Municipal Council. 5. In the circumstances, we think it appropriate to direct the Caste Scrutiny Committee to provide ex post facto hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3. In the event, the Caste Scrutiny Committee is of the opinion that the earlier validation of the caste certificate has been wrongly issued, it would be open to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to ignore the same as if the same was never granted and deemed to have been set aside in terms of this order and instead pass appropriate orders as may be advised and warranted in the given situation. All questions with regard to the caste claim of respondent No. 3 will have to be considered on its own merits, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, after providing opportunity 7 to respondent No. 3 as well as the petitioner herein. 6. Needless to observe that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall consider the matter afresh, on its own merits, without being influenced by its earlier decision, which is impugned in this Writ Petition. As aforesaid, we would have ordinarily set aside the said decision and remitted the matter before the Caste Scrutiny Committee for re-consideration. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we have thought it appropriate to provide opportunity of ex post facto hearing which will meet the ends of justice. 7. In the event, the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is adverse to respondent No. 3, the same shall not be given effect for the period of FOUR WEEKS from the date of order or TWO WEEKS from the date of communication thereof on respondent No. 3, whichever is earlier. The 8 Caste Scrutiny Committee shall dispose of the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in any case, not later than SIX WEEKS from today. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 shall appear in the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee at 11-00 A.M. on 05-02-2010, when the Caste Scrutiny Committee may indicate the schedule for hearing of the proceedings. 8. The original record which has been received from the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee be made over to the learned Counsel appearing for the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/wp6335.09