JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:---Rule. Mr. R.M. Patne, Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. R.K. Mendadkar with Suresh S. Shah, appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No. 6.

2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and at their request, the matter is taken for final hearing.

3. The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik respondent No. 3 herein, dated May 12, 2003 (Exhibit F) being illegal, unlawful and violative of natural justice and fair play.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Kunbi caste, recognized as Other Backward Class (OBC). Election of Bhagur Nagar Parishad was held on December 2, 2001. The petitioner contested the election as OBC candidate (kunbi) and got himself elected as the President by securing maximum votes. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 6 was his political rival who made a complaint that the petitioner did not belong to OBC and, hence, could not have contested the election in reserved category. On the basis of the said complaint, an inquiry was held by the Collector, Nasik and the case was referred to the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner was called upon to furnish relevant documents to prove his caste claim. The petitioner produced the relevant documents in support of his claim. The Committee, however, by the order impugned in the petition, negatived the claim of the petitioner holding that he did not belong to Kunbi (OBC) and invalidated the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court.

5. Several contentions were raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner contending that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as belonging to Kunbi (Other Backward Class) had been rightly issued and could not have been cancelled by the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee. In our opinion, however, it is not necessary to enter into larger question since on one ground, the petition deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the committee deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has asserted in the petition that though the order impugned in the present petition was passed by a Committee of three members, hearing was afforded to the petitioner only by two members. The action taken against the petitioner disqualifying him and invalidating the certificate is, therefore, illegal, unlawful and deserves to be quashed.

7. In this connection, our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to a decision of the Apex Court in (Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others)1, 1995(2) Bom.C.R. (S.C.)690, Their Lordships issued certain directions. The relevant part of para 13 reads as under:

"The admission wrongly gained or appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate necessarily has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. The genuine candidates are also denied admission to educational institutions or appointments to office or posts under a State for want of social status certificate. The ineligible or spurious persons who falsely gained entry resort to dilatory tactics and create hurdles in completion of the inquiries by the Scrutiny Committee. It is true that the applications for admission to educational institutions are generally made by a parent, since on that date many a time the student may be a minor. It is the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false status certificate. It is, therefore, necessary that the certificate issu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document