The court emphasized the importance of considering the Vigilance Cell report and providing reasons for disagreeing with it in caste validity cases.

JUDGMENT

M.M.SATHAYE,J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP for the Respondent/State waives service. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 17/1/2022 passed by the Respondent No.2 (The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Sangli) with further direction to Respondent No.2 to issue certificate of validity in respect of the Petitioner's caste certificate.

3. Few facts necessary for disposal of this matter are stated below:

(i) The Petitioner claims to be belonging to Dhawad community which is notified as 'Other Backward Classes ' in State of Maharashtra. It is the case of the Petitioner that after due inquiry, a caste certificate was issued in her favour on 18/2/2011. It is contended that the Petitioner wanted to contest the election and therefore, she moved Respondent No.3 Committee for verification of caste certificate and submitted all the documents in support of her caste claim.

(ii) Respondent No.2 Committee referred the Petitioner's caste claim to the Vigilance Cell for conducting school and home inquiry and accordingly, the Vigilance Cell conducted detailed inquiry and submitted its report dtd. 13/10/2021.

(iii) It is the case of the Petitioner that despite all the documents submitted by her, as also the report of the Vigilance Cell, by the impugned order dtd. 17/1/2022, her caste claim was invalidated.

(iv) It is further contended that in the meantime, the Petitioner had contested the election and declared a member in Grampanchayat Ward No.1, Dhawadwadi, Atpadi, Sangli which is reserved seat for woman under OBC category.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Mendadkar submitted that since the Petitioner is Muslim by religion, there is no likelihood of finding caste entry in the old records related to Petitioner and therefore, the report of the home inquiry by Vigilance Cell conducted as per Rule 13(a) to (d) of the Caste Certificate Rules of 2012 (hereinafter "the said Rules " for short) assumes importance. He contended that in case of Muslims, the possibility of mention of caste is rare because, unlike Hindus, caste is not recognized in Muslims. He further contended that the Vigilance Cell has inquired with the respectable person from the village of the Petitioner, who had stated that family of the Petitioner belongs to Dhawad caste and traditional occupation of the family is manufacturing iron equipment for agriculture. He also contended that Respondent No.2 Committee has mechanically recorded findings that the caste claim of the Petitioner is not proved, without properly appreciating the Vigilance Cell report.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon an old communication/letter dtd. 26/7/1996 issued by the under-Secretary of the State of Maharashtra to the Director of Social Welfare Department, in which it is directed that since possibility of finding mention of caste is rare in the case of muslims, while verifying their caste claims, this peculiar situation should be considered.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner invited our attention to various documents produced in support of Petitioner's case. He also relied upon following Judgments of this Court:

(i) Aasiya Mahamadyunnus Gavandi V/s. District Caste Certification Verification Committee in Writ Petition No. 145 of 2021.

(ii) Akhtar K. Jamadar V/s. State of Maharashtra, 2021(6) Bom. C.R. 487.

(iii) Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed (Mujawar) @ Bismilla Allabaksh Shikkalgar v/s. Divisional Caste Certificate Committee No.1, Solapur in Writ Petition No. 10577 of 2013.

(iv) Kum. Fehmi Mushtak Mukadam V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 8144 of 2014.

(v) Jamadar Mehaboob Ghudubai V/s. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 11394 of 2016.

(vi) Shri. Imram A. Ajij Shaikh V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. in Writ Petition No.