1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6575 of 2010 Shaikh Baba Qureshi s/o. Manna Qureshi Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr. D.P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhelakear, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. S.S. Tope Advocate for respondent No.4 Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.. DATE : 21st December, 2010. PER COURT : 1] The petitioner is seeking recall of the order passed by the scrutiny committee in favour of the respondent No.5 validating the caste claim of the concerned respondent of his belonging to Momin caste which is included in OBC category. 2 2] The petitioner was the contesting candidate at the elections of the Municipal Corporation for the seat of a Corporator. In the said elections he contested the election against the respondent No.5 and, the respondent No.5 was declared elected from amongst the OBC reserved category. 3] The caste certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.5 was referred to the Scrutiny committee for the purpose of verification. The committee, after conducting necessary enquiry, has issued the validity certificate in favour of the respondent No.5. The petitioner has challenged the order of the scrutiny committee validating the claim of the respondent No.5. 4] According to the petitioner, the documents on which reliance was placed by the respondent No.5 for the purpose of securing validation certificate are not genuine documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cousins of the respondent No.5 had tendered an application to the scrutiny committee for securing the validation certificate and in the genealogy recorded in the affidavit tendered before the committee by the concerned cousins of the respondent No.5, there is no reference to the branch to which the petitioner belongs. According to the petitioner, the genealogy submitted by the cousins of the respondent No.5 differs in material particulars. The respondent No.5 in support of his claim has placed reliance on copy of marriage certificate of Jabbar Ismail Khan, who, 3 according to the respondent No.5, was his grandfather. According to petitioner, considering genealogy noted in affidavits tendered by cousins of respondent No.5, in enquiry in respect of their claim for validation certificates, contention of respondent No.5 that Jabbar Ismail Khan was his grandfather does not appear to be correct. 5] It transpires from the perusal of the order passed by the Scrutiny committee that the reliance is placed by the respondent No.5, on a document I.e. Marriage certificate issued in favour of one Jabbar Ismail, who is stated to be the grandfather of the petitioner, which pertains to the year 1948. In the said certificate, the caste of the said Jabbar Khan Usman Khan is recorded as “Momin”. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to Momin community and as such, cannot be said to be conversant with the relations of the respondent No.5. The scrutiny committee, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.5 has issued a validity certificate in his favour. Before issuing the validity certificate, the respondent No2 committee has also considered the report of the vigilance cell, which is in favour of the respondent No.5. In so far as the reliance placed by the petitioner on the affidavits tendered by the cousins of the respondent No.5, in support of his contention that the documents referred to in the order of the scrutiny committee for validating the claim of the respondent No.5 are not genuine, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would not be appropriate to probe into 4 the disputed question of fact so as to give a finding , as to whether the genealogy recorded in the affidavits tendered by the cousins of the respondent No.5 is accurate or otherwise. Even otherwise, prima facie, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by the petitioner. 6] It would be advantageous to refer to observations made by Apex Court in the matter of “ Kum. Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Collector” reported in (1994)6 SCC 241. . “High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.” 7] As the petition raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into, in exercise of the extraordinary 5 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The writ petition is summarily dismissed. [R.M. BORDE,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp