1 wp6694-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6694 OF 2010 1] Sandeep S/o Bhausaheb Shirsath Age 27 years, Occ-Nil, R/o House No.162 Police Colony, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER Vs 1] The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee-1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through its Research Officer cum- member Secretary. 2] The Deputy Collector [Setu] Aurangabad. [Copy to be served on Govt. Pleader High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad] 3] The Election Commission of India Through its Election Officer-Cum Collector, Aurangabad. [Copy to be served on Standing Counsel High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad for Election Commission, Govt. of India, Bombay] 4] The Aurangabad Municipal Corporation Aurangabad through its Commissioner 5] Baban s/o Pandit Narwade Age 31years, Occ-Corporator, R/o Samta Nagar, Aurangabad. .. RESPONDENTS 2 wp6694-10 ... Shri R.N.Dhorde h/f Shri M.K.Deshpande, Adv.for petitioner. Shri K.G.Patil,AGP for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri P.P.More,Adv. for Respondent no.4. Shri Pradeep Deshmukh,Adv.for Respondent no.5. ... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 21/09/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, petition is heard finally. 2] The respondent no.5 is an elected corporator of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation. The respondent no.5 got elected in the year 2010. The petitioner has challenged caste validity certificate issued in favour of respondent no.5. The respondent no.1 caste scrutiny committee issued caste certificate as "Mahar" Scheduled Caste in favour of the respondent no.5 on 3/2/2010. The petitioner has challenged the said certificate. 3] The learned counsel Shri R.N.Dhorde appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence to support the caste claim of respondent no.5 that he belongs to Scheduled Caste. The 3 wp6694-10 respondent no.5 has failed to produce any cogent and reliable evidence in support of the caste claim. It was further submitted that the respondent scrutiny committee without recording reasons, issued caste validity certificate to respondent no.5. 4] The learned counsel Shri K.G.Patil has produced original record before us. The learned counsel Shri Deshmukh for respondent no.5 submits that the caste scrutiny committee after verifying the record placed by respondent no.5, issued the caste validity certificate. There is no reason to discard the issuance of caste validity certificate in favour of respondent no.5. Respondent no.5 has filed affidavit in reply in support of his caste claim today. 5] We have perused the original record, the copy of caste validity certificate and the reply filed by the respondent no.5. 6] It is now a settled legal position that even while issuing a caste validity certificate, the respective committee has to pass brief reasoned order in support of issuance of such a certificate. Perusal of original record demonstrates that the committee has failed to record reasons in support of issuance of the caste validity certificate. On this ground, we find it appropriate to remand the matter back to the committee. The committee shall consider the matter on merits afresh after hearing the necessary parties and thereafter, decide issuance of 4 wp6694-10 caste validity certificate in respect of respondent no.5. 7] The impugned caste validity certificate issued by the committee on 3/2/10, in favour of respondent no.5 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the committee. The respondent no.5 undertakes to appear before the committee on 3rd October 2011 at 11 a.m. Respondent no.5 is entitled to submit any other evidence in support of his caste claim. The caste scrutiny committee shall thereafter, proceed to deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law and the record collected and placed before it. The committee shall pass final order on the caste proceedings within two months from 3rd October 2011. Parties to the petition shall cooperate with the committee. In case the petitioner files application before the committee, the committee would deal with the same in accordance with law. All issues are kept open. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed opinion on merits of the case. Rule is made absolute. [T.V.NALAWADE,J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] umg/wp6694-10