-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2008 Ansari Rafique Ahmed Abdul Quayum & Anr. .. Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents --- Mr.V.A.Gangal i/by Ashok Gade for the Petitioners. Mr.C.R. Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1,2,5 & 7. Mr. N.R. Bubna i/by R.S.Apte for Respondent No.3. --- CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2008. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. :- . By this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Division, Mumbai, whereby Scrutiny Committee has held that the claim of respondent No.4 that she belongs to O.B.C. (other backward class) is found to be valid. The petitioner and respondent No.4 had contested elections for the post of councillor of Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Corporation. The respondent No.4 was declared elected as councillor on 28.05.2007. Her caste certificate has been held to be valid vide order dated 04.08.2007. After the order was passed by the Committee, the petitioner approached the Committee, making grievance that respondent No.4 had obtained the certificate by playing fraud. The -: 2 :- Committee obviously did not accept the grievance of the petitioner because the Committee had passed the order holding the certificate to be valid much earlier. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are averments made in the petition that the petitioner had approached the Scrutiny Committee in time but his application was not accepted. The averments made in paragraph 11 to the petition are not specific as to when the petitioner had approached the committee and to whom he had met. No individual is named as to whom the petitioner had approached. The Committee consists of three members, there is other staff in the office of the Committee. In the absence of any pointed allegation, as to whom she had approached or naming any particular member of the Committee or its staff, the allegation of the petitioner that she approached the Scrutiny Committee is incapable of being accepted. The issues raised by the petitioner are purely question of fact and an enquiry could have been made by the Scrutiny Committee had the petitioner approached the Committee in time. After having lost election to the Respondent No.4, the petitioner could have immediately after 28.05.2007 approached the scrutiny committee because it is well known provision of law that candidate who contest the seat reserved for O.B.C. has to immediately approach the Scrutiny Committee to get validity certificate. As the petitioner did not raise any -: 3 :- objection before the committee before it decides the caste claim of the respondent, the petition cannot be entertained by this court in its extraordinary jurisdiction. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE,J.) .....