The court held that a scrutiny committee must determine the substantive caste status of a candidate based on all evidence provided, rather than merely assessing the procedural validity of a certificate, to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

A.S.ANAND, CJI.

(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) THE appellant was elected as a corporator from ward no. 63, Aurangabad municipal corporation in the elections held in April, 2000. This ward was reserved for OBC category. The appellant contested the election on the basis of a caste certificate dated 28.12.1993 issued by tehsildar, the competent authority to issue such certificate to the effect that the appellant belong to OBC category, i.e. Kunbi caste. After his election as a corporator, he was even elected as a deputy mayor of the municipal corporation, Aurangabad. Election of the appellant was not challenged by taking recourse to any proceedings under the statute. No election petition was filed. Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition in public interest seeking setting aside of the election of the appellant as a corporator though respondent no.1 was neither a candidate himself nor even a voter. He prayed for the seat to be declared vacant. Doubt was cast on the genuineness and validity of the caste certificate alleging the relevant entry in the dispatch register of the tehsildars office having been fabricated by interpolation. It appears that on the basis of a communication received from the state election commission, 39 caste certificates in respect of various corporators were referred to the caste scrutiny committee. The scrutiny committee was requested to verify the caste claims and submit a report to the corporation who was then to take up the issue with the state election commission. The scrutiny committee, vide order dated 28/08/2000, opined insofar as the appellant is concerned that "The competent officer has not issued the caste certificate in favour of the candidate and since the caste certificate has not been issued, the question of verification of his claim does not arise." The High Court relying upon this document and other documents, by the order impugned before us, allowed the writ petition and held the corporator-appellant disqualified to continue to be the corporator elected from ward no. 63. The seat was declared vacant and the commissioner of Aurangabad municipal corporation was directed to inform the state election commissioner accordingly and to take necessary steps to hold fresh elections.

(3) IN this appeal questioning the order of the division bench of the High Court, Mr. V.A. Bobde, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the scrutiny committee fell totally in error, as instead of determining the issue of caste of the appellant, examined the question whether the caste certificate had been issued at all or not. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the affidavit of the tehsildar who had issued the caste certificate dated 28.12.1993 in which his stand, even in this Court, has been that the caste certificate produced by the appellant had in fact been issued by him. Mr. L. Nageshwar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 1 submits that the appellant did not belong to the caste claimed by him and that various documents, which he produced earlier as well as in this Court, do not show that he belongs to Kunbi caste as claimed by him. It is not proper for us to go into that issue. We are, however, of the opinion that the scrutiny committee did not act fairly and fail to comply with even the basic rules of natural justice. The appellant was called upon to establish his caste but the material produced by him was not considered by the scrutiny committee. It is only the validity of the certificate that was considered. The real issue was overlooked by the committee. The scrutiny committee ought to have returned a finding as to whether or not the appellant belonged to Kunbi caste, as claimed by him on the basis of the certificates and other documents produced by him and should not have stopped short of that determination merely by considering whether the earlier certificate was in fact issued by tehsildar or not. Since the High Court has mainly r