WP No. 4427/2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4427 OF 2009 Shaikh Mahammad Shaikh Abdul, Sarpanch, R/o. Hiwarwadi, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Department of Tribal Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. Through its Secretary. 2. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 (Social Welfare), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. Through its Secretary/Research Officer. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Beed. 4. The Tahsildar, Georai, Dist. Beed. ....Respondents. Mr. Yeramwar h/f. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V. B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. Reserved on : 13th September, 2011. Pronounced on : 20th September, 2011. ORDER : [ PER T. V. NALAWADE, J. ] 1. This proceeding is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 25.9.2008 made by Caste Scrutiny Committee constituted for Aurangabad Division. The WP No. 4427/2009 2 claim of the petitioner that he belongs to 'Momin' caste, which is of the category, Other Backward Class (OBC) for Muslims, is rejected by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 2. The matter was referred to Caste Scrutiny Committee as the petitioner got elected as a Member of Village Panchayat, Hiwarewadi from aforesaid reserved category and he came to be further elected to the post of Village Sarpanch from the same category. The petitioner had produced the caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Beed, dated 29.9.1997. Hiwarewadi is part of district Beed. Before the Committee, the petitioner relied on the school leaving certificate allegedly issued to him by Zilla Parishad School, Hiwarewadi, Pahanipatrak issued to one Dada Bapuji who according to the petitioner was his grandfather, in respect of agricultural land for the year 1959-60, the death certificate in respect of father of the petitioner issued on 3.1.2008 and some caste certificates issued to other persons who are said to be relatives of the petitioner and affidavits. Enquiry was made by the Vigilance Committee and report of Vigilance Committee was supplied to the petitioner. After giving personal hearing to the petitioner, the Committee gave the decision under challenge. The Committee has held that some manipulated record is produced by the petitioner in support of his claim. WP No. 4427/2009 3 3. Both the sides are heard. Original record was called and this Court has perused the original record. The record contains the papers of enquiry made in respect of creation of false record. Complaint was made by the concerned school that somebody had recently entered the word "Momin" in the school register against few entries. The word "Momin" was added in school register against one entry and due to that the subsequent 3-4 entries also got changed as there was already marking to show the description as it was applicable to subsequent entries. As such addition was made as against the names of few more students of the school, statements are recorded to show that they do not belong to Other Backward Class "Momin". On the basis of enquiry, it was reported that the entry of caste "Momin" was not present in the original record, register of the school. The Committee has considered this record and has formed the opinion that the word "Momin" was added subsequently in the school register. The Committee had called the original school record for verification. The Committee had called the original revenue record also in respect of Pahanipatrak and has formed the opinion that the copy produced in respect of the land of Dada Bapuji is also manipulated. The Committee has considered the school record in respect of elder brother of the claimant showing that he had given his religion only as "Muslim". The Committee has considered record in respect of the birth and death certificate and certificate WP No. 4427/2009 4 issued by Gramsevak to the effect that in the registers the caste was not mentioned though it was mentioned in the certificate issued to the claimant in the year 2008. Some villagers had made complaint against the claimant and they also produced copies of aforesaid record to show that the claimant had produced some manipulated record. The Committee has considered the report of Vigilance Committee which is not supporting the claimant. The claimant has avoided to say anything about the Vigilance Committee's report. In view of aforesaid material, the Committee has rejected the claim and has ordered to take further steps. 4. It was submitted for the claimant that the complaints were made out of politics against him and one M.L.A. played role against the claimant. There is a letter of one M.L.A. on record, but there are aforesaid circumstances. The burden was on the claimant and the aforesaid record is against him. The caste certificate does not show that any material was produced by the claimant for getting it. No perversity can be seen in the order and hence, there is no possibility of interference. So the petition stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/