1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21 OF 2009 Shaikh Abkar S/o Shaikh Maheboob, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Chousala, Tq. & Dist. Beed. .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. Rafiq Kasam Tamboli, Age : 38 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Chousala, Tq. & Dist. Beed. 2. The Tahsildar, Beed, Dist. Beed. 3. The District Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed. 4. The Scheduled Caste, V.J.N.T. O.B.C. & Special Backward Class Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Shivaji Chowk, Jaybhawani Nagar, Aurangabad. Through its Member Secretary. 5. The State of Maharashtra. .. .. Respondents Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for the Petitioner Shri M. P. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri B. V. Wagh, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2, 3 and 5. Shri B. L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. 2 CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Date of reserving the Judgment : 30th September, 2009. Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 08th October, 2009. J U D G M E N T [Per N. D. Deshpande, J. ] : 1. Perused the order dated 08.04.2009 and original papers received from Scrutiny Committee. By mutual consent heard both the sides finally, as ad-interim relief was granted earlier for not taking any coercive action, pending hearing of this petition. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking writ of certiorari or direction for calling the record/proceeding of respondent No. 4 in the matter of verification of petitioners caste certificate and prayed for validating his caste, by quashing and setting aside the order dated 06.12.2008 passed by respondent No. 4/Committee which is impugned in this petition. 4. The material facts can be briefly stated as under : In the year 2007 the petitioner contested Gram Panchayat election of Chousala from the reserved ward for other backward 3 classes and got elected. He submitted his nomination form along with caste certificate dated 19.04.2005 belonging to Attar (O.B.C.) issued by the Sub Divisional Officer Beed. 5. The petitioner contended that, said caste certificate dated 19.04.2005 was issued to him only after considering the documentary evidence by the competent authority and as per procedure which was forwarded for verification to the respondent No. 4/Scrutiny Committee through the Collector. At the time of filling up his nomination paper along with all necessary documents for validating his caste certificate. 6. The respondent No. 1, a political rival in the election made a complaint to respondent No. 4/Scrutiny Committee alleging that the petitioner does not belong to Attar community (O.B.C.) caste. According to the petitioner it is a false complaint made by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, for verification of his caste certificate by respondent No. 4, he submitted as many as nineteen documents for his caste claim and those are sufficient proof for validating his caste certificate belonging to Attar caste which is recognized as other backward class in the State of Maharashtra. 7. The petitioner further relied on a panchanama dated 02.07.1941 prepared by Tahsildar regarding petitioners family business of Attar which his forefathers were doing at the material time and, therefore, claimed that, he and his family belongs to Attar caste. However, it was not available at the time of verification of his 4 caste claim by respondent No. 4/Scrutiny Committee and now he relied on the same along with its Urdu translation dated 11.10.2008 which is at Exhibit-J at page 39-39A of paper book. The petitioner filed affidavit of others in support of his caste claim together with his affidavit dated 22.09.2007 of genealogy (Exhibit - K). 8. The vigilance cell inquiry by police inspector on 27.12.2007 has recorded the customs of Attar caste and also few statements of persons namely Vilas Pandharinath Bobade, Amer Dnyaneshwar Gaikwad and Sachin Baburao Choudhari and vigilance cell report dated 02.01.2008 has been relied. The Government circular dated 22.07.1996 and 19.10.1995 and talathi report dated 26.04.2006 have also been relied in support of alleged caste claim. These circulars according to the petitioner are guide lines for issuance of caste certificate to the person belonging to Muslim Religion. It has been pointed out that, there is not contra evidence of entry in the petitioner's school record or otherwise showing different caste. Despite, this respondent No. 4 by its order dated 06.10.2008 invalidated the caste claim of petitioner belonging to Attar caste. The said order is impugned in this petition. 9. In the light of the above contention, we have examined the impugned order dated 12.08.2008 passed by the respondent No. 4 and also the submissions made by Mr. B. L. Sagar (Killarikar) who also placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2007(5) All M.R 757 Deorao S/o Ganpatrao Umredkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and urged to dismiss the petition. 5 10. Perused the affidavit of Ramdas Narayan Vaidya, Member Secretary of respondent No. 4/Committee. It is seen that all the documents were taken into consideration by the Committee, so also the vigilance cell report. The Committee has issued show cause notice to the petitioner for personal hearing and personal hearing was given on 05.08.2008 and 12.08.2008. The relevant documents at Sr. No. 3, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13 admittedly do not speak about the petitioners Attar caste and do not support his alleged caste claim. The rest of the documents are recent. The petitioner's school leaving certificate dated 13.10.2007 at Sr. No. 3, we find no entry about the caste. The documents at Sr. No. 4 to 6 are referring to school record of his daughter and son of the year 2006-2007. Although it mentioned their caste as Attar, those are not yet verified for validity certificate. Therefore, it is rightly observed that, those cannot be considered as proof, to prove the caste claim of their father i. e. petitioner. The documents stating caste as Raj referring to his nephew and daughter of the year 1998 do not support the claim of petitioner. So also the school record of his daughter namely Kum. Shaikh Sajiya Shaikh Akbar at Sr. No. 10 is of the year 2008 and, therefore, has not been considered. The documents at Sr. No. 11 to 13 referred above cannot be accepted as Attar caste, from bare entry as Muslim/Musalman/Islamik Musalman. The copy of the summons at Sr. No. 14 and 15 has been rightly, rejected as the same is not original summons or certified copy thereof respectively. The Committee has rightly observed that, the Sarapanch and Upsarpanch are not the authorities to issue caste certificate referring to documents at Sr. No. 18 and 19. As the petitioner has no document 6 prior to 1967 and further having failed to give evidence in support of his alleged caste, the respondent No. 4/Committee was found fully justified. We do not notice any procedural irregularity or lapses on the part of the respondent No. 4/Committee while exercising our power under judicial review. Hence the petition is devoid of merits and calls for no interference. The petition stands dismissed. 11. Needless to state that ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. Rule discharged. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Sept. 09 12. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of interim relief which was granted while issuing notice. 13. Since the interim relief is operating during the time we are 7 inclined to direct that no criminal prosecution shall be lodged against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from today. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Sept. 09