: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5912 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5912 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.5912 OF 2007 Shamrao Babu Powar .. Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Rahul P. Walvekar for the applicant. Mr.A.H.Palekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Nitin Mulye for respondent No.3. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. DATE : 19th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The petition is not on board for final hearing. However, by consent of parties, it is taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard learned Counsel appearing for both the parties. 3. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Regional Caste Verification Committee, Pune Division, holding that the petitioner’s claim that he belongs to "Kunbi" caste is not valid. Verification of the caste claim of the petitioner became necessary because he has contested election of a village panchayat from a ward reserved for other backward class and he was declared : 2 : elected. 4. The principal grounds to challenge in the petition are two. First ground is that the matter was heard by the Committee consisting of three members. However, the order by which his caste claim has been rejected is signed by only two members. The Chairman of the Committee has not signed it. Reliance is placed on an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5880 of 2007 in the case of Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale v/s. Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale v/s. Ravikiran Vishnupant Ingawale v/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 14.2.2008. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 14.2.2008. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 14.2.2008. 5. It is further contended that while the matter was pending before the Tribunal, an application was made on 13.9.2006 pointing out that after the matter was heard in the month of April, 2006, the petitioner has come into possession of several documents which are relevant and, therefore, the Tribunal should consider those documents. The impugned order shows that this application has not been taken into consideration. 6. In our opinion, considering that the order has not been signed by all the members of the Scrutiny Committee, which heard the matter in view of the order referred to above passed by the Division Bench in Ravikiran (supra), : 3 : the order of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside. In our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice :- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R a) The order dated 21.8.2007 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee impugned in this petition is set aside. b) The matter is remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for de-novo consideration, hearing and decision afresh. c) It is directed that Caste Scrutiny Committee while deciding the matter shall also take into consideration the documents placed by the petitioner before it alongwith his application dated 13.9.2006. 7. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) : 4 : (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)