The main legal point established in the judgment is the procedural requirement for issuing a show cause notice when the vigilance report is in favor of the petitioner, as required by Rule 17(11)(i) of the Rules of 2012.

JUDGMENT :

S. G. Dige, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of all parties.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban, (Hereinafter referred to as “Scrutiny Committee”) dated 26th June, 2019, thereby invalidating the Caste Certificate of the Petitioner as belonging to “Mansuri Caste” which is notified as Other Backward Class.

3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as under :

(a) The Petitioner was granted caste certificate as belonging to “Mansuri” by the Additional Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, Bandra, (Respondent No.3) on 11th October, 2011. She moved Scrutiny Committee (Respondent No. 2) for verification of her caste certificate as she intended to contest election of Mumbai Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred as “said Corporation”). Thereafter, she filed her Nomination Form for contesting general election of the said Corporation. The elections were conducted on 21st February, 2019 and results were declared on 23rd February, 2019, in which Respondent No. 4 Naiyabanu Abdul Hafiz Ansari was declared as elected candidate; whereas the Petitioner had secured second highest votes. Aggrieved thereby the Petitioner filed Election Petition before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, challenging the election of Respondent No. 4 on several grounds.

(b) Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed the complaints and opposed the grant of caste validity certificate to Petitioner before Respondent No 2 Committee. Respondent No. 2 Committee ordered the Vigilance Cell enquiry in respect of the caste certificate of the Petitioner. After getting the Vigilance Cell Report, the Petitioner has not filed her say as the Vigilance Cell Report was in her favour. Respondent No. 2 Committee had not issued a show cause notice as contemplated under the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes And Social Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2012) to the Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 Committee passed the impugned order, invalidating the caste claim of the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.

4. Thus, the basic contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner by the learned Counsel is that even though the Vigilance Report was in favour of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2-Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner, without issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner in Form-25 as contemplated under Rule 17(11) of the 2012 Rules. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the Judgment dated 19th November, 2015 of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition 8788 of 2013 in the case of Saraswati R. Mayekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and the judgment dated 5th March 2008 of the Division Bench of this Court in WP No. 4165 of 2007 in the case of Shri Narayan Janu Pawar vs. The Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Navi Mumbai & Ors.

5. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and learned AGP that the Roznama of the hearing before the Scrutiny Committee shows that the Petitioner was aware about the Vigilance Report. Hence, issuance of the show cause notice was not necessary.

6. Having heard the rival submissions of the parties and having gone through the record of the case, we find that in the present case, the issue revolves around the issuance of show cause notice in form 25 in terms of Rule 17(11)(i) of the Rules of 2012. Rule 17(11)(i) is reproduced hereunder :

“17(11)(i) In case of those cases which are referred to Vigilance Cell, upon considering the report of Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the claim of the applicant, it shall call upon the applicant to prove his Caste Claim, by discharging his burden, as contemplated under section 8 of the