-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 547 OF 2009 Sanchita Vitthal Khot ... Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, instructed by Mr.Tejpal S. Ingale, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vineet Naik with Mr. Sandesh Patil, instructed by Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: MARCH 22, 2010. P.C. Rule. Mr. Gokhale, learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Vineet Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, waive service of Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 30th May, 2008 whereby the caste claim of respondent No.4 as belonging to Christian­OBC came to be validated. The petitioner and respondent No.4 contested the election for Councilor of Sangli, Miraj and Kupwad Municipal Corporation from Ward No. 66 which was -2- reserved for OBC woman. The elections were held on 22nd June, 2008 and respondent No.4 was declared elected in the said election. Respondent No.4 obtained a certificate from respondent No.3, Sub­Divisional Officer, Miraj, that she belongs to Christian (196) which is recognised as an OBC under G.R. dated 13th February, 1978. The petitioner, after making some enquiry, tried to assert her say that respondent No.4 never belonged to Christian which is recognised as an OBC. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 converted into muslim religion on 18th September, 1987. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, by the impugned order at Annexure­E dated 30th May, 2008, validated the caste certificate granted in favour of respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Mr. Kumbhakoni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is very cryptic and no reasons are given in the order while validating the certificate. It is further submitted that even the report of the Vigilance Cell was also not called for before passing the order. This factual aspect as such is not in dispute. In view of that, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to give detailed reasons and decide the matter de novo in connection with the validity of the certificate. -3- 4. Considering the said aspect and in view of the consensus prevailing between the learned advocates in the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to decide the question of validity of the certificate granted to respondent No.4 afresh. The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall also call for the report from the Vigilance Cell and thereafter decide the issue in connection with the validation of the caste certificate of respondent No.4 in accordance with law. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and it is for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to take fresh decision in accordance with law. While deciding the same, the Committee shall also give appropriate reasons and shall also call for the report from the Vigilance Cell. The Caste Scrutiny Committee may dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the receipt of writ from this Court. It is clarified that by remanding the matter it should not mean that this Court has upheld the claim of the petitioner that respondent No.4 does not belong to OBC as the said question is kept open for the consideration of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and by this order the matter is only remanded for passing the fresh order in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that respondent No.4 and petitioner both shall be given an opportunity to defend their respective claims before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Mr. Naik, learned counsel for respondent No.4 has given the consent for remand after taking instructions from his client. -4- 5. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.