M.S. KARNIK, J.

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

2. The petitioner challenges an order dated 22.08.2016 passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1-Solapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Committee' for short) invalidating caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Julah' caste which is notified as Other Backward Classes (for short 'OBC') in the State of Maharashtra.

3. The petitioner claims to profess Islam religion and the persons so professing Islam religion are inter-alia called as 'Muslim' or 'Musalman'. In school, birth and death records, caste is not mentioned. According to the petitioner, since status of OBC is determined based on occupation, the petitioner has produced voluminous evidence to show that petitioner's family was carrying on traditional occupation of 'weaving'. Based on the evidence so produced, the Competent Authority was pleased to issue a caste certificate dated 12.10.2015 certifying that he belongs to 'Julah' caste which is notified as OBC in the State of Maharashtra.

4. The petitioner on the basis of the said caste certificate contested the election to the post of Member of Ward No. 2 of the Najik Chincholi, Tal. Akkalkot, District Solapur which was reserved for backward class of citizens. The petitioner was declared as elected in Gram Panchayat election. The petitioner moved respondent no. 2-Committee for verification of his caste claim.

5. The Committee referred caste claim of the petitioner for vigilance enquiry. The Vigilance Cell submitted a report dated 07.05.2016 after recording the statement of elderly residents namely Shri Anandappa Bhimraya Parit and Shri Manikrao Bhimrao Waghmode who stated that ancestors of the petitioner were in the occupation of weaving and they regard them as belonging to 'Julah' caste. Thus, the Vigilance Cell concluded that traditional occupation of the family of the petitioner is weaving and the report was in favour of the petitioner.

6. The Committee issued show cause notice dated 06.08.2016 stating that the petitioner had not submitted any documentary evidence prior to 1967 to prove his caste claim and traditional occupation and called upon the petitioner to show cause why his caste certificate should not be invalidated.

7. The petitioner by his reply pointed out that insofar as Islam religion is concerned, there is no question of there being any documentary evidence which shows caste as 'Julah'. He, however, placed reliance on certain documents dated 15.05.1957 & 28.11.1959 to show that certain material was purchased by his father for weaving purpose.

8. The Committee by the impugned order did not agree with the Vigilance Cell report and for the reasons recorded invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed (Mujawar) @ Bismilla Allabaksh Shikkalgar vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Committee No. 1, Solapur in Writ Petition No. 10577 of 2013 dated 21.02.2014 to contend that in case of Mohameddans, there was no recognised castes or sub-castes and therefore, as in the case of Hindus, there is no likelihood of finding any entry of the caste of a person as Mohameddans religion in old records. This Court considered the provisions of Rules 12 & 13 of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short 'the said Rules') the relevant portion of paragraph 6 reads thus:

“...In the present case, the Vigilance Cell report is on record. Clause (d) of sub Rule 1 of the Rule 13 provides that the Vigilance Cell should collect information including sociological, anthropological, ethnological and genetical traits of the relevant Caste. In the present case, this exercise was necessary as we have