The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and sufficient evidence to support caste claims, especially regarding permanent residence and relationship proofs.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Advocate's Application for the Respondents on institution waives notice of rule. Heard finally by consent of both the parties.

2. The Petitioner has approached this Court on being aggrieved by the Order dated 23.1.2020 thereby rejecting the claim of the Petitioner of belonging to the Hindu (Nhavi) caste, which is recognized as Other Backward Class ("OBC") at Sr. No. 108 under a Government Resolution dated 13.10.1967 in the State of Maharashtra.

3. The lady Petitioner, whose maiden name was Surekha Vasant Mane, has contested the election of Gram Panchayat for the village-Shiroli Pulachi, taluka-Hatkalangale, district-Kolhapur, from the reserved seat for the OBC category. The Petitioner was elected and became a member of the Gram Panchayat of the said village. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to the Hindu (Nhavi) caste, on the basis of the caste certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji, dated 23.12.2016. The Petitioner had applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for the verification of her caste claim and for the issuance of validity certificate. The Petitioner had supplied various documents in support of her claim to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee entrusted the matter to the Vigilance Cell for conducting a local inquiry. The Respondent No. 3 had objected to the Petitioner's claim before the Scrutiny Committee by way of tendering certain documents. On evaluation of the Petitioner's caste claim, the Scrutiny Committee vide its Order dated 29.6.2018 rejected the Petitioner's claim for issuing a validity certificate. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 7646 of 2018 before this Court. Vide its Order dated 1.10.2019, this Court quashed and set aside the Order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 29.6.2018 and remitted the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh consideration. Concerning the same, the Petitioner had tendered some additional documents along with an extended genealogy to the Committee in support of her claim. On fresh assessment, once again the Petitioner's caste claim came to be rejected by the Committee vide its impugned Order dated 23.1.2020.

4. At the inception, the learned counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the earlier Order of this Court dated 1.10.2019. It is stated that in an earlier round of litigation, this Court had expressed that the Committee has ignored the mention of the word "Nhavi" in the revenue document of Amruta. According to the Petitioner, the revenue extract (page 23 of the Petition) of Amruta Sitaram Mane (alleged real brother of Petitiner's grant father) bears mention of the Nhavi caste, which ought to have been considered by the Committee. Moreover, it is argued that the School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner's brother Dipak bears reference of the Nhavi caste, as well as there is an entry of the Nhavi caste in the School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner's cousin sister Sumitra. It is submitted that all these vital documents have been ignored by the Committee while assessing the Petitioner's claim. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the first round of litigation the Committee had accepted (paragraph 8, page 52 of the Petition) the Petitioner's relationship with her grand father's real brother (cousin grand-father) Amruta, but in the next round, the Committee held that the relationship has not been established.

5. The learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 emphatically resisted the Petitioner's claim by supporting the impugned Order dated 23.1.2020. He submitted that neither Amruta, nor Dipak, nor Sumitra are related to the Petitioner. It is argued that the Petitioner was born in Karnataka State and her father was also a permanent resident of Karnataka who lived there till his death. Prior to the deemed date of 13.10.1967, the Petitioner's family was very