(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2034 OF 1998 Smt. Bhagirathi w/o. Madhavrao Kshirsagar, Aged : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculturist, R/o. Taroda (Kd.), Taluka and District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Smt. Vanmala w/o. Prabhakar Shinde, Aged 30 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Taroda (Bk.), Taluka & District : Nanded. 2. The Tahsildar/Taluka Executive Magistrate, Nanded. 3. The Caste Verification / Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Through the Divisional / District Social Welfare Officer, Aurangabad. 4. The State of Maharashtra. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.C. Bora, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. N.B. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 4th March 1998, passed by the respondent no.3, thereby validating the claim of respondent no.1, of belonging to "Kunbi", which is notified as Other Backward Class. 2. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the authority has erred in validating the caste claim of respondent no.1. He submits that there was no material on record to establish that the respondent no.1 belong to Other Backward Class. It is submitted that the respondent no.1, only in order to contest the election, had managed to get certificate of belonging to "Kunbi". (3) 3. Mr. S.S. Bora, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the contrary, submits that the Committee, on careful consideration of the material on record, has passed the order impugned and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the respondent no.1's original name was Kum. Vanamala Dattatraya More and, that she had produced voluminous documents of the year 1921, which would establish that her forefathers belong to "Kunbi" caste. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2034