1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6553 OF 2007 Pradeep S. Wadekar ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. ...Respondents Mr N.V. Walavalkar, Sr Counsel i/b Mr D.R. Sawant for Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr R.K. Mendadkar i/b Mr R.K. Bhatia for Respondent No.3. Mr S.B. Shetye for Respondent No.5. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R. JOSHI JJ. DATE : 2ND MARCH 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] The petition is not on board for final hearing. By consent of the parties, it is taken up for final hearing. 2] The facts that are relevant for deciding this petition are that the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai issued a Certificate dated 19th January 2001 certifying that one Dilip Yellappa, who is respondent No.3, belongs to Gondhali caste, Nomadic Tribe. It appears that on the basis of that Certificate, the respondent No.3 contested municipal elections. The present petitioner was his rival in those elections. He approached to the Caste Scrutiny Committee alleging that the Caste Validity Certificate was obtained by the respondent No.3 on the basis of forged documents and he has played fraud. That application was however rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 10th August 2007 holding that once it has issued Caste Validity Certificate, it has no power to review that 3 decision and that decision can be challenged only before the High Court. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee. . 3] The learned counsel appearing for petitioner, relying on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.3739 of 2008 and other connected writ petitions, decided on 12th February 2009, submits that as according to the petitioner, the Caste Validity Certificate was obtained by the respondent No.3 relying on forged documents by practising fraud, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has jurisdiction to enquire into that aspect of the matter. We have heard the leaned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. He does not dispute that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above, the Caste Scrutiny Committee does have power to enquire into allegation that Caste Validity Certificate has been obtained by a candidate by practising fraud and by relying on forged documents. In our opinion, therefore, as 4 there is no dispute between the parties that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has the jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation that the Caste Validity Certificate has been obtained by practising fraud, the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee which is impugned in the petition dated 10th August 2007 will have to be set aside. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 4] The order dated 10th August 2007 is set aside. The proceedings are remitted back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai. The Scrutiny Committee shall hold enquiry into the allegations of forgery and fraud made by the petitioner in relation to the Caste Validity Certificate issued in favour of the respondent No.3. It is clarified that in case the Scrutiny Committee comes to the conclusion that the Caste Validity Certificate has been obtained by respondent No.3 by relying on forged documents or by practising fraud, the Scrutiny Committee has the necessary power to cancel such Certificate. The Scrutiny Committee is 5 directed to follow law, grant an opportunity of being heard to both the sides before it passes order. All the contentions available to both the parties are kept open. Petition is disposed off. 5] In view of the order passed in the petition, civil application No.581 of 2010 is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI )