Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner has challenged impugned order dated 8 July, 2013, whereby the Respondent-Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner by overlooking the real brother's caste certificate "Pardeshi Bhamta" (Vimukta Jati-A). After going through the reasons and after considering the submissions so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, we are inclined to quash and set aside the order basically for the reason that there cannot be different caste certificates of other family members than the person who is claiming validity of the caste certificate. In the present case, there is ample material on record to show the validity certificates are in favour of the Petitioner's real brothers Mr. Mahesh Pralhad Pardeshi and Mr. Jagdish Pardeshi as "Pardeshi Bhamta".

3. In view of no contra material on record, the certificate, in our view, just cannot be overlooked basically when there is no finding of fraud and/or misrepresentation. It is difficult to accept the reason so provided by overlooking the above position, while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner and also i