1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4693 OF 2010 Sayyad Sadik Arif ..PETITIONER VERSUS The Scrutiny Committee & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr V.S. Bedre, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate with Mr P.V. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.3 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. (Date of reserving the order : 15.7.2010 Date of pronouncing the order : 20 .7.2010) ORDER (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the respondent - Scrutiny Committee, dated 11.5.2010, invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Mujawar", which is recognised as Other Backward Class. 2 2. Facts in brief which are necessary to consider this petition may be stated thus :- The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ahmednagar had issued a caste certificate to the petitioner as belonging to Muslim-Mujawar (O.B.C., which is recognised as Other Backward Class. The aforesaid certificate came to be issued to the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar, on 17.10.2008. The aforesaid certificate came to be referred to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee for verification. The respondent - Scrutiny Committee by order dated 13.11.2008 validated the caste claim of the petitioner. Based on the aforesaid validity certificate, the petitioner contested the election of the Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar from Ward No.31 on a seat which was reserved for Other Backward Classes. The petitioner was declared as elected. It appears that one Mohd. Shafeeque s/o Sk. Yousuf filed writ petition vide Writ Petition No.2538 of 2009 in this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (P.V. Hardas, J.) was a member, allowed the petition and remitted the matter back to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh. The respondent - Scrutiny Committee pursuant to the order of this Court, passed the order which is impugned in the present petition thereby invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. 3 3. Mr Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us (i) that copy of the report of the vigilance cell was not provided to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of submitting the reply. It was also urged before us by Shri Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that since this Court had remitted the matter back to the Committee for a decision afresh, the Committee ought to have conducted a vigilance cell inquiry afresh and the vigilance cell ought to have submitted a report afresh. (ii) The Committee has not properly appreciated all the documents submitted by the petitioner and, therefore, the order of the Committee suffers from non application of mind and is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Mr V.J. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and original petitioner in Writ Petition No.2538 of 2009 has urged before us that the copy of the report of the vigilance cell was enclosed as a document and annexed to the petition in Writ Petition No.2538 of 2009 and, therefore, the petitioner can be deemed to have had constructive knowledge of the report of the vigilance cell. The petitioner has not filed any reply and, therefore, it would not be open for the petitioner to urge before this Court for the first time that copy of the report of the vigilance cell was not supplied to the petitioner. It was also urged by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent that in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India this Court may not embark on a process of reappreciating the documents as the appreciation of the documents by the respondent - Committee does not suffer from any 4 perversity. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Kokila Raghunath Dhodia vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2010 (3) Mh.L.J. 307 to urge before us that the procedure which is required to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee has not been followed and, therefore, the order stands vitiated. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shivaji Shankar Konkewad vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 843 to urge before us that no home inquiry as contemplated under the Act was performed. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in Kavita Nagnath Mudrale vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2009 (5) Bom.C.R. 727 to urge before us that copy of the report of the vigilance cell was not given and on that count the Division Bench had set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee. Reliance is also placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sadeek Shah Ramjan Shaha vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2008 B.C.I. page 39 to urge before us that mere showing of the report to the Counsel for the petitioner would not amount to compliance with the principle of natural justice and, therefore, the order of the Committee stood vitiated. 5. It is true that copy of the report of the vigilance cell ought to be provided to the party whose caste claim is submitted to the Scrutiny 5 Committee for verification. We need not examine the question as to whether the annexing of the copy of the report of the vigilance cell in Writ Petition No.2538 of 2009 would amount to sufficient compliance of providing a copy of the report of the vigilance cell to the present petitioner and calling for his explanation as the perusal of the indicate does not indicate that the report is adverse to the interest of the petitioner. The entire order of the Scrutiny Committee is based upon determining as to whether the petitioner had succeeded in establishing that he belongs to Mujawar caste on the basis of the documents submitted by the petitioner. 6. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties we have perused the findings recorded by the respondent - Scrutiny Committee. The Committee has dealt with in detail in respect of each and every document submitted by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the parties have taken us through the discussion of the Scrutiny Committee in respect of the documents. Upon perusal of those findings, according to us the reasoning of the Committee is not perverse and, therefore, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction this Court cannot act like an appellate Court and substitute its opinion in place of the findings of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has examined all the documents and has recorded a finding that the petitioner has failed in establishing that he belongs to Mujawar caste. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the documents have not been properly appreciated and the findings, therefore, stand vitiated. We are afraid 6 that this exercise, i.e. reappreciation of the evidence is wholly impermissible to be done by us in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that each and every document submitted by the petitioner has been appreciated by the Committee and the Committee has given reasons as to why it felt that the aforesaid document do not further the case of the petitioner. We have not noticed any perversity in the reasoning of the Committee to warrant any interference in this petition at the behest of the petitioner. 7. Thus, according to us the petitioner has utterly failed in establishing that the petitioner belongs to Mujawar caste and since there is no merit in the present petition, present petition is dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) At this stage Mr Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks the continuation of the interim order passed by this Court on 7.6.2010 not to declare the vacancy. The interim order is continued for a period of four weeks from today. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.)