N.M. Jamdar, J.

1. These petitions arise from the proceedings undertaken for validation of Caste Certificates. The two points that we have framed for our consideration are common in all these petitions and thus, these petitions are grouped together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The two points that arise for consideration are:

(A) Whether the composition of the Scrutiny Committees constituted by the State of Maharashtra by Government Notification dated 30.07.2011 for verification of caste certificates, is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (I), 1994 (6) SCC 241 and Madhuri Patil (II), 1997 (5) SCC 437 and what is the legal status of the validity certificates granted by these Committees.

(B) Whether it is mandatory for the Scrutiny Committees to call for a field inquiry report from the Vigilance Cell constituted under the provisions of the Act and Rules, before granting validity certificates to the candidates and what is the legal status of the validity certificates granted without conducting a vigilance cell inquiry.

3. The leading writ petition as well as other writ petitions relating to the grant of validity certificates to the candidates were placed before us on 31.01.2012 on the advent of elections to local self Government in the State in February, 2012. Some of the writ petitions were filed by the candidates desirous of contesting elections and who were not issued caste validity certificates prior to the election. Those candidates, because they could not produce the validity certificates within stipulated time, were denied nomination forms by the election authorities. The other set of cases are where validity certificate have been issued by the Committee constituted vide Notification dated 30-7-2011 and also without complying the requirement of obtaining Vigilance Cell report in a span of day or so after the presentation of the applications. While examining the validity certificates granted to such parties, it was revealed that the Scrutiny Committees had granted validity certificates to large number of applicants within a very short span from the date of the applications, and in some cases even within one day. The exercise of verifying the caste certificates by calling for field report from the Vigilance Cell was obviously not done in such cases.

4. Upon enquiring with the Assistant Government Pleader as to how validity certificates were issued in such a summary manner, without calling for the vigilance cell report, the Court was informed that the scrutiny committees specially constituted for the purpose of elections in past few months have granted several such validity certificates to thousands of persons without any inquiry at all. Thus, it was clear that such candidates may contest the elections on the basis of validity certificates issued in summary manner, and further the validity certificates so obtained could be used by the candidates for all other purposes as well. The relatives of each of such candidates could use them as evidence in furtherance of their claim of entitlement to the benefit of reservation policy.

5. This Court, considering the scale and urgency of the issue, especially the impending election to local self Governments, decided to take up the matters pertaining to Caste claims on priority basis. The cases were grouped in three sets. The first set of the petitions was of those petitioners who intended to participate in the ensuing elections of the local Government, even though they did not have caste validity certificates, prayed for relaxation of the condition to produce validity certificate at the time of scrutiny. The second set of the petitions related to those petitioners whose caste certificates were invalidated by the Scrutiny Committees & they sought to challenge the said decisions coupled with a direction to the returning officer to allow them to participate in the ensuing election. The third set of petitions related