1 W.P.No.3520.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3520 OF 2007 Ramakant S/o Digambarrao Bais, Aged 29 years, Occupation Member of Panchayat Samiti R/o Kolambi, Taluka Naigaon, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai). 2] The Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category, Divisional Caste Certificates Verification Committee,(through its Member Secretary Aurangabad No.3, Latur. 3] The State Election Commission, Mumbai. 4] The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 5] The Collector, Nanded. 2 W.P.No.3520.07 6] The Tahsildar, Biloli. 7] Anandrao S/o Madhavrao Shivareddi, Age 36 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o Manjram, Ta. Naigaon, District Nanded. ..RESPONDENTS ... Shri.A.S.Bayas, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 6. None for respondent No.3. Shri P.D.Bachate,Advocate for respondent No. 7. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. RESERVED ON: 9TH JUNE, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON: 17TH JUNE, 2010. JUDGMENT :( PER K.K.TATED, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner-Original applicant has 3 W.P.No.3520.07 preferred the Writ Petition, under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 6th June, 2007 on the ground, that rejection of complete favourable vigilance report of home and school enquiry by the respondent No.2, without assigning any reason is illegal, arbitrary, without authority of law and violation of mandatory procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in KUM. MADHURI PATIL VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (AIR 1995 SC 94). 3. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to “Rajput Bhamta” Vimukat Jati. The Competent Authority has issued certificate to the petitioner to that effect. The petitioner was elected as a member of Panchayat Sammitee Naigaon, District Nanded, from the seat reserved for OBC category. The caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The petitioner has submitted in as much as 22 documents in support of his caste claim. The 4 W.P.No.3520.07 petitioner also produced school record of himself, his brother and sister which clearly indicates the caste recorded as “Rajput Bhamta”. 4. The claim was referred to vigilance cell and vigilance officer has conducted the vigilance enquiry. During the course of enquiry the vigilance officer has noted the trade, traditions and customs of the family of the petitioner, which is equivalent to “Rajput Bhamta” community. The vigilance Officer, after due enquiry has come to conclusion that applicant belongs to “Rajput Bhamta” Vimukt Jati. 5. It is case of the petitioner that without properly considering the evidence on record and the report of vigilance enquiry, the respondent No.2 Committee erroneously invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. Therefore, he preferred present Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 5 W.P.No.3520.07 6. During the pendency of the present Writ Petition, caste claim of real brother of petitioner namely Balaji Digambar Bais was also referred to Scrutiny Committee, prior to the reference of the caste claim of the petitioner. The caste claim of the brother of the petitioner was referred to the Committee for verification on 5th October, 2006 and caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee by Collector Nanded on 25th February, 2007. 7. During the pendency of the petition, caste claim of real brother of the petitioner was decided and validated by the respondent No.2 Committee. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that reference of the name of brother of the petitioner was already there in the vigilance report and the petitioner has also annexed the school record of his real brother Balaji Digamber Bais. 8. In view of these facts, the petitioner 6 W.P.No.3520.07 preferred Civil Application No. 4350 of 2010 for placing on record the caste validity certificate issued by the Committee in respect of his real brother. The said Civil application came to be allowed by this Court. 9. Mr. Ghatge, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the respondent- State submits that in view of KUM. MADURI PATIL’S CASE, the case of each candidate is to be verified on its own merits. Therefore, the petitioner can not rely on validity certificate issued by the Committee in respect of his real brother Balaji Digamber Bais. 10. We heard both the counsel at length. It is an admitted fact that Scrutiny Committee validated caste certificate of petitioner’s real brother during the pendency of the present Writ Petition. The petitioner also relied on School Leaving Certificate of his brother before the Committee. Therefore, in our view, it is necessary in the 7 W.P.No.3520.07 interest of justice, to allow the petitioner to rely on caste validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of his real brother Balaji Digamber Bais. 11. In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances, we allow the petitioner to place on record the caste validity certificate issued by the Scrutiny Committee in favour of his real brother Balaji Digamber Bais. The matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. We direct that the Caste Scrutiny Committee shall admit on record the caste validity certificate issued by them regarding the petitioner’s brother Balaji Digamber Bais on 23rd July, 2009 and after considering it alongwith the other evidence on record, shall pass the appropriate order regarding the caste certificate of the petitioner. Liberty granted to the petitioner to place on record the additional evidence only in respect of caste verification certificate issued by the Committee in favour of his real brother Balaji Digamber 8 W.P.No.3520.07 Bais. 12. Impugned order dated 7th June, 2007 passed by Respondent No.2 is set aside. 13. We expect that the Scrutiny Committee should decide the application as early as possible and in any case, within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. Interim order passed by this Court on 22nd June, 2007 to continue till the decision of the claim and thereafter for two weeks. 15. Rule made absolute in above terms. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK