1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3553 OF 2007 Smt. Ujjawalabai w/o. Ashok Somwanshi, R/o-Nagalgaon, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) The Scheduled Castes, Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category, Divisional Caste Certificates Verification Committee, (Through its Member Secretary), Aurangabad No.3, Latur. 3) The State Election Commission, Mumbai, 4) The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, 5) The Collector, Latur, 6) Vaijanathabai Panditrao Sonkamble, R/o-Dhadknal, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri. A.S. Bayas Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Shri. S.T. Shelke Advocate for the Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner contested election for a seat of Panchayat Samitee, Nagalgaon, Taluka Udgir, District-Latur. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Caste ("Mahar"). Her caste claim was verified. By an order dated 5/6th June, 2007 the Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was 3 issued caste certificate of Scheduled Caste ("Mahar") by the S.D.O. Udgir, District-Latur dated 5th January, 2007. In the submissions of the counsel, the State of Maharashtra was formed in the year 1962. The Petitioner was residing in the State of Karnataka prior to the formation of the State. The Petitioner married on 11th May 1993, with a person who was residing in village Nagalgaon, Taluka-Udgir, District-Latur (Maharashtra). It was submitted that the Petitioner and her family members were recognized as belonging to Scheduled Caste ("Mahar") in the State of Karnataka. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner was entitled to claim the status as belonging to Scheduled Caste ("Mahar") in the State of Maharashtra. The counsel placed reliance on the reported Judgment of the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in the matter of Smt. Radhabai Charansingh Chaware vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2007 (4) ALL M.R. Page 38. In the submissions of the counsel, the Caste Scrutiny Committee erred while rejecting 4 the caste claim of the Petitioner. 4. Affidavit in reply has been filed by Respondent No.4, which we have perused. We have also perused the order passed by the Committee and relevant documents placed on record. The Committee observed in the order that father of the Petitioner was resident of Gaganbid, Taluka-Aurad, District-Bidar, State of Karnataka. The Petitioner was not resident of State of Maharashtra prior to 1950. The Committee had also considered the evidence produced by the Petitioner and the Vigilance Cell report wherein the Petitioner had stated before the Vigilance Cell Officer that she was residing at Gaganbid, Taluka-Aurad, Dist- Bidar, State of Karnataka prior to her marriage with Ashok Somwanshi, resident of village Nagalgaon, Taluka-Udgir, Dist-Latur. 5. We have perused the Judgment of the Division Bench of Nagpur High Court in the matter of Hitesh Dasiram Murkute vs. State of Maharashtra 5 and others, reported in 2007(5) Mh. L.J. Page 454. The Division Bench of Bombay High Court by its order dated 30th September 2008, expressed its inability to agree with the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the Nagpur High Court in case of Hitesh Dasiram Murkute vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). Consequently, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice was pleased to constitute a Full Bench for hearing and final disposal of the matter. 6. We have considered the conclusions arrived at by the Full Bench in the case of Shweta Santalal Lal vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2010 (2) Mh. L.J. Page 904. 7. In the light of the conclusions arrived by the Full Bench in the case of Shweta Santalal Lal vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), we find that there was no error in the view adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The 6 Petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp3553.07