JUDGMENT : (Per S.J. Vazifdar, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.

2. Respondent No.1 is impleaded through the Divisional Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred as the Scrutiny Committee). Respondent No.2 is the Collector, Nanded.

3. The Petitioner has impugned an order dated 5th June, 2007, passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad. The Petitioner has also sought a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to validate the caste certificate issued in her favour stating her as belonging to the Jangam caste.

4. The Petitioner claims to belong to the Jangam caste which was recognised as a Other Backward Class by a Government Resolution of the State of Maharashtra dated 13.10.1967. It is admitted that the Petitioner’s father was a resident of Andhra Pradesh prior to 13.10.1967; that the Petitioner was born and completed her primary education, in Andhra Pradesh and that the Petitioner got married and settled in Maharashtra after 1967.

5. The question that falls for consideration is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits conferred by the State of Maharashtra on the members of her caste viz. Jangams, who belonged to the O.B.Cs. both in the State of Andhra Pradesh and in the State of Maharashtra when neither her father nor she were admittedly residents of the State of Maharashtra prior to 13.10.1967.

6. The Petitioner obtained a caste certificate dated 23.5.2000 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer and Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanded, Maharashtra. Respondent No.2 conducted the Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti Elections for the Nanded District for the years 2007-2012. The Petitioner contested the election against a seat of the Eklahara-Mukhed Division Gat No.60 reserved for O.B.Cs. The Returning Officer declared the Petitioner as elected on 12.3.2007.

7. The intervenor, the defeated candidate, raised an objection regarding the Petitioner’s caste certificate before Respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 therefore forwarded the Petitioner’s caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee for verification.

8. The Vigilance Cell submitted a report dated 20.5.2007 which supports the Petitioner’s claim as belonging to the Jangam caste.

9. The Scrutiny Committee by the impugned order dated 5th June, 2007 observed that on the basis of the evidence, prima-facie, it appeared that she belonged to the Jangam caste. Despite the same, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated her caste certificate and forfeited the same on the ground that neither the Petitioner nor her father were residents of the State of Maharashtra prior to 13.10.1967. The Scrutiny Committee therefore held that all benefits availed of by the Petitioner are liable to be recovered. Accordingly, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, Respondent No.2, was directed to cancel the candidature of the Petitioner at the said elections. Finally, the Scrutiny Committee authorised the Tahsildar to register a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-Notified Tribe (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000.

10(a). The question that falls for our consideration is answered in the negative, against the Petitioner by three judgments of the Supreme Court and two Division Bench judgments of this Court. In view thereof, it would not have been necessary for us to deal with the matter in any detail. However, Mr.Salunke relied upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in the case of Dr.Rajesh Kumar Paswan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997, Patna, 31 which supports the Petitioner’s case. It is therefore necessary to refer to the judgments and consider their effect.

11. It would be useful to reiterate while dealing with the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document