1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 496 OF 2009 Nilofer d/o Bashir Ansari Age 24 years, Occ. Household R/o. Tasha Galli, Sultaniya Chowk, Dhule, District Dhule ...Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai 2 The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Caste Claims, Nashik Division, Nashik 3. The Sub Divisional Officer Dhule Sub Division, Dhule 4 The Municipal Corporation, Dhule Through its Commissioner 5 The State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Mumbai 6 Smt. Leena w/o Yuvraj Karankal Age 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o. House No.27-B, Fule Colony, Dhule, Taluka & Dist. Dhule ...Respondents ..... Ms. Shyamoleena Savkar h/f Mr. S.R. Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 3 Mr. S.T.Shelke, advocate for respondent No.5 Mr. Girish Rane, advocate for respondent No.6 ..... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED: 22ND JANUARY, 2010 P.C. - 1 Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive notice. 3 By this petition, in essence, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24.10.2008, passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee validating the caste claim of respondent No.6. For the nature of relief claimed, we do not think it necessary to delve upon the factual matrix of the case or the grounds raised in the petition in detail. Briefly stated, respondent No.6 claimed to be Hindu Teli community, which is notified as Other Backward Category. On the basis of that claim, the respondent No.6 had contested the election and was elected as a Councilor of Dhule Municipal Corporation. The caste certificate was placed for Scrutiny before the statutory committee, who in turn has validated the caste claim of the respondent No.6. That order is purportedly passed on 24.10.2008, at page 50 of paper book. The said order is in Marathi. The relevant portion of the said order merely refers to the documents relied upon by respondent No.6 in support of 3 the caste claim and indicates that the respondent No.6 was resident of Maharashtra and further it would establish the claim of the respondent No.6 that she belongs to Teli Caste. 4 The petitioner, as aforesaid, has challenged the said order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Diverse contentions have been raised before this Court. Firstly, that the application for seeking Caste certificate of respondent No.6 was by the husband of respondent No.6 and not by her personally. Besides, the affidavit was also filed that of husband of respondent No.6 and that no certificate to establish the caste claim of respondent No.6 from her parental side was produced. Besides, the date on which the application was made on the same date the caste certificate was issued in favour of respondent No.6, which goes to show the haste in which the decision was taken. Rather it was a pre-decided accord given by the competent authority. Moreover, the Scrutiny committee did not evaluate the relevant documents on record, which it was expected to do and record proper reasons even if it were to validate the caste claim of respondent No.6, as it is expounded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pashamiya Khajamiya Attar Vs State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2008 3 Mh.L.J. 149. These are the grounds on which the petitioner has taken exception not only to the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee validating the caste claim of respondent No.6 but also to the issuance of Caste certificate by the competent authority. 4 However, during the course of arguments, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be more than content if the caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to initiate thorough enquiry into the matter and record reasons even if it were to validate the caste claim of respondent No.6. 5 In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to burden this judgment, with the first three contentions raised before us. We are inclined to set aside the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the sole ground that the same is bereft of any reason and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny, keeping in mind the exposition of this Court in the case of Pashamiya Khajamiya Attar (supra). Even in that case, the Scrutiny Committee had validated the caste certificate issued in favour of the 6th respondent without recording the reasons for such validation. Such decision of the Committee came to be reversed on the basis of settled legal position that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has duty to evaluate the documents placed before it and give reasons for either accepting or rejecting the documents submitted by the parties. Even in the present case, as is observed earlier, the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 24.10.2008 does not record any reason. At best, we may say that it has recorded its conclusion about the view it proposed to take in respect of the documents pressed into service. Since we are inclined to set aside the purported order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 24.10.2008, we would relegate respondent 5 No.6 for fresh enquiry before the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which in turn shall re-examine the caste claim of respondent No.6, after following necessary procedure, as provided by law and as per the settled legal position. The Caste Scrutiny Committee shall provide opportunity to all interested parties including the petitioner herein, who has challenged the caste claim of respondent No.6 before this court. 6. As aforesaid, it is not necessary for us to examine any other contention raised before us by the petitioner including the arguments of respondent No.6 that the petitioner except challenging the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee has not challenged the genuineness of the caste claim of respondent No.6 as such. We leave all those questions open to be considered by the Committee on its own merits in accordance with law. The Caste Scrutiny Committee however, shall dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably by 30th April, 2010. 7 Needless to observe that until the Caste Scrutiny Committee finally decides the question of validity of caste certificate issued by the competent authority, no adverse action can be taken against respondent No.6 and in case the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee is adverse to respondent No.6, the same shall not be given effect for a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the 6 said order, which shall be done in any case within one week from the date of order. The petitioner as well as respondent No.6 shall appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 01.02.2010 at 11.00 a.m. In the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. 8 Rule made absolute on the above terms. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) rlj/