JUDGMENT

PRASANNA B.VARALE,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

2. The Petitioner by way of the present petition challenges the order passed by the Respondent No.2-District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur (hereinafter referred to as 'Scrutiny Committee' for the sake of brevity) dtd. 30/9/2021 whereby claim of the Petitioner is invalidated. Few facts giving rise to the present petition are summarized as follows.

3. Election of Gram Panchayat, Village Rui, Taluka Hatkanangle, District Kolhapur was declared for the tenure of 2021 to 2026. The Petitioner contested the election for the post reserved for OBC women category. The Petitioner was elected from Ward No.1 and necessary certificate dtd. 18/1/2021 was issued by the Election Officer.

Copy of the same is placed on record as Exhibit-B on Page-21of the paper-book. As the Petitioner had contested election as a candidate belonging to reserved category, the claim of the Petitioner was needed to be referred for validation. It seems that apart from these requirements as there was a complaint raised by Respondent No.5 Dipak Sathe, the claim of the Petitioner was submitted to the Committee for validation. In support of the claim the Petitioner submitted certain documents as per the provisions of the Act. On receipt of the claim the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee called for the Vigilance Cell report by conducting the home enquiry. The copy of the Vigilance Cell report was made available to the Petitioner. Notice was also issued on the backdrop of Vigilance Cell report. The Petitioner in response to the notice submitted written submission to the Committee and the Scrutiny Committee on the basis of written submission as well as after hearing the Petitioner invalidated the claim of the Petitioner. The reason assigned for the invalidation was two fold. Firstly, the documents submitted by the Petitioner were post independence era and they were not reflecting clearly that the Petitioner belongs to 'Kasai' community. The second ground for invalidation was that only on the basis of the Vigilance Cell report, the Petitioner cannot substantially prove his claim. It is also observed by the Committee that the findings of the Vigilance Cell are not binding on the Scrutiny Committee.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee impugned in the Petition is not only mechanical order but it also suffers from non-application of mind. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that most of the family members of the Petitioner were illiterate and it is also the generation of the father who was admitted in school. The learned Counsel submitted that in view of these facts, the Petitioner could only submit certain documents of post independence era in support of her claim. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that as the Petitioner and her family is professing muslim/mohmedian religion, there is no question of referring to sect or caste in muslim community and resultantly, the documents are also not showing such caste or sect and documents only refer to a religion. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner then submitted that the Vigilance Cell report clearly supports the claim of Petitioner and on erroneous appreciation of this report, the Committee recorded a negative finding. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in identical set of circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to set aside the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim and directed the Committee to issue Caste Validity Certificate in favour of Petitioner. Heavy reliance was placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the Judgment and order of this Court dtd. 4/2/2021 in Writ Petition No.145/2021 in the matter of Aasiya Mahamadyunnus Gavandi @ Aasiya Usmangani Bujruk. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the case of Ayaaub