- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4504 OF 2007 Bandhu @ Sunil Jaywant Gaikwad. ...Petitioner VS. 1.State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents --- Smt.S.M.Gorwadkar, for Petitioner. Mr.A.Kumbhakoni, Asst.Advocate General with Mr.C.R.Sonawane, for Respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.R.M.Pethe i/b. Mr.R.G.Ketkar, for Respondent no.3. Mr.S.B.Shetye, for Respondent no.5. Mr.S.S.Kanetkar, for Intervener. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 27th February,2008. DATED: 27th February,2008. DATED: 27th February,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally - 2 - by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner by this petition challenges the intimation dated 31.5.2007 given by the Regional Caste Verification Committee, Pune, intimating that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner that he belongs to "Kunbi (OBC)" caste is invalid. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 13.8.2007 passed by the Regional Caste Verification committee giving reasons for its conclusion that the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner certifying that he belongs to "Kunbi" caste is invalid, as also the communication dated 5.6.2007 from the Pune Municipal Corporation that because the caste certificate on the basis of which the petitioner contested the election has been held to be invalid, he ceases to be elected councillor of Pune Municipal Corporation. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. We have perused the record. We find that the caste scrutiny committee itself had commissioned a report from the vigilance cell. The report dated 9.3.2007 was submitted by one Mr.Arun Andalkar. In that report the officer found that the - 3 - caste of the petitioner is "Hindu Kunbi". Then we find that the vigilance cell submitted another report. The basic report was signed by Mr.Dilip D. Kadam on 19.4.2007. He on the basis of the material collected by him reached to the same conclusion which was reached by the earlier report of Mr.Andalkar that the petitioner belongs to "Kunbi" caste. It appears that Deputy Superintendent of Police made an endorsement below the report submitted by Mr.Dilip D.Kadam. The name of that Dy. Superintendent of Police is Mr.Uday Sonavale. By that endorsement Mr.Sonavale disagreed with the conclusion reached by Mr.Dilip Kadam and has opined that the petitioner has not been able to prove that he belongs to "Kunbi" caste. Now the committee should have considered both the reports i.e. report dated 9.3.2007 of Mr.Andalkar and report dated 19.4.2007 by Mr.Kadam and the endorsement taking contrary view by Mr.Sonavale. The order dated 13.8.2007 of the committee shows that the report of Mr.Andalkar dated 9.3.2007 has been referred to, the endorsement of Mr.Sonavale dated 21.4.2007 has been referred to, but the report submitted by Mr.Dilip Kadam has not even been referred to. What is further pertinent to note is that after Mr.Sonavale made the endorsement - 4 - disagreeing with the report of Mr.Kadam, the petitioner submitted a complaint dated 14.5.2007 before the committee stating therein that the endorsement made by Mr.Sonavale is a result of bias and reasons were given indicating why, according to the petitioner, that endorsement is a result of bias of Shri.Sonavale against the petitioner. Perusal of the order of the committee shows that the report of the vigilance cell dated 9.3.2007 of Shri.Andalkar has completely been omitted from consideration, the report of Mr.Kadam has also been completely omitted from consideration and only the endorsement of Mr.Sonavale has been considered and it has been observed by the committee that Mr.Sonavale has opined that the petitioner has not been able to prove that the petitioner belongs to Kunbi caste and he belongs to Maratha caste. The committee while considering the endorsement of Mr.Sonavale has omitted from consideration the complaint submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, to our mind it is clear that the committee has omitted from its consideration the material which was important and relevant and therefore, the order of the committee is liable to be set aside. The municipal commissioner has made the order referred to above only as a consequence of the - 5 - order of the committee, and therefore, if the order of the committee is set aside in consequence thereof the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner is also liable to be set aside. In our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- . The intimation dated 31.5.2007 and the order of the Committee dated 13.8.2007 as also the intimation from the Pune Municipal Commissioner dated 5.6.2007 are set aside. . The matter in relation to the caste certificate is remitted back to the Regional Caste Verification committee, Pune, for denovo consideration, hearing and decision in accordance with law. . Rule is made absolute accordingly. . No order as to costs. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.) - 6 - (V.M.Kanade, J.) ---