1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3 OF 2008 Dinesh s/o Sahebrao Harne Age 40 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o Maulana Azad Nagar, Selu, Tq. Selu, District Parbhani ... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Social Justice, Cultural Affairs, Tourism Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The State Election Commission, through its State Election Commissioner, Mumbai. 3. The Collector and District Electoral Officer, Parbhani. 4. The Municipal Council, Selu, Tq. Selu, District Parbhani, through its Chief Officer. 5. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Selu, District Parbhani. 6. The Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, 2 Aurangabad, through its Member Secretary. 7. Laxman s/o Dhondiba Ambhore, Age 45 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Math Galli, Selu, Tq. Selu, District Parbhani. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No.1, 3 aqnd 5 Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri L.H. Khona, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.6 Shri M.P. Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No.7 ----- CORAM : S.B. DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 17th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER DESHMUKH, J.): 1. We heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 6. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of parties. 2. It is not in dispute that present petitioner has lost election. Respondent No.7 is a returned candidate in an election 3 of respondent No.4 Municipal Council, Sailu. It is further not in dispute that respondent No.7 has contested the election on the seat reserved for O.B.C. The petitioner challenges the validity certificate issued by the respondent No.6 Committee in favour of respondent No.7. It is annexed at Exhibit D (Page 31 of the compilation). We heard the learned counsel for the parties. Advocate for petitioner relied upon reported judgment in the case of Pashamiya Attar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 149). Counsel appearing before the Court have no dispute that the judgment in the matter squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In our view, when the social status claim of respondent No.7 was before the Scrutiny Committee, the Committee is expected to consider the claim of the respondent No.7 and decide the claim in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2000). We are inclined to allow this Writ Petition by quashing and setting aside the validity certificate Annexure B. We further are inclined to remand the matter to the Committee concerned. Mr. Sagar explained that at the relevant time only one Committee was functioning at Aurangabad for the area of Marathwada region. As of today, such Committee at Latur is 4 established and functioning for the districts of Latur, Osmanabad, Nanded, Hingoli and Parbhani. Sailu Municipal Council is within the jurisdiction of Parbhani districts. This matter, therefore, needs tobe remanded to the Scrutiny Committee at Latur. 3. Petition is partly allowed. Order impugned is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee at Latur. Caste claim of respondent No.7 to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2000 after affording opportunity of being heard to respondent No.7. Petition stands disposed of. Parties to appear before the Committee at Latur on 10th December 2009. The Committee thereafter shall decide the status claim of the respondent No.7 within a period of eight weeks. Rule made absolute in above terms. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ S.B. DESHMUKH, J.]