{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1907 OF 2009 Gangadhar Wamanrao Bordikar Councillor of the Municiapal Council, Jintoor, Tq-Jintoor, Dist-Parbhani PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary, Social Welfare & Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary, 3. The Collector, Parbhani 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sailu, Dist-Parbhani 5. The Tahsildar, Jintoor Dist-Parbhani 6. Sayad Shama Sayad Isak R/o Jamadar Galli, Warud Ves Jintorr, Dist-Parbhani 7. Shaikh Matin Shaikh Nabi Tamboli R/o Charthana, Tq-Jintoor Dist-Parbhani 8. Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Karim R/o Bamani Plot, Jintoor At present at Kadrabad Plot Parbhani {2} 9. Shaikh Mustafa Shaikh Ajij R/o Charthana, Tq-Jintoor, At present at Majalgaon, Dist-Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, Advocate for petitioner Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondent State Mr.B.L.Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.6 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 17 th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order by which the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad has granted validity certificate to the caste status of respondent No.6 as belonging to Tamboli OBC. It is undisputed that the respondent No.6 came to be elected from Ward No.2 on a seat which was reserved for OBC category candidate. The caste claim of respondent No.6, thereafter, came to be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification and the Scrutiny Committee has granted the validity certificate, which is impugned in this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the order of the scrutiny committee is a non speaking order in as much as the scrutiny {3} committee has not given any reason as to why it has granted validity certificate to respondent No.6. This Court had occasion to direct the scrutiny committee to give reasons justifying the reliance on the certificates tendered by a party. In the face of an unreasoned order, according to us, the validity certificate is unsustainable. Since respondent No.6 is an elected representative and is continuing to hold the office as elected representative and since the validity certificate has been granted which has been set aside only on the ground that the order passed by the scrutiny committee is an unreasoned order, we are inclined to grant protection to respondent No.6. In the light of that, therefore, this petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quashed and st aside and the matter is remitted back to the scrutiny committee for decision afresh. We direct respondent No.6 to appear before the scrutiny committee on 31 st August 2009 and also direct the respondent scrutiny committee to decide the caste claim of respondent No.6, afresh in accordance with law, within 4 months of 31.08.2009. Since the matter is being remitted back to the scrutiny committee for decision afresh, we direct that no adverse action be taken against respondent No.6 solely on the basis of the fact that we have quashed the validity certificate and have remitted the matter back for decision afresh. 4. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1907-09