JUDGMENT :

M. M. SATHAYE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service for Respondent No. 1. Mr. Patil, waives service for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Taken up for final disposal by consent of the parties.

2. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a Writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17th December, 2021 passed by the Respondent No.1 (Caste Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur) invalidating the Petitioner’s caste claim and for direction to issue caste validity certificate in favour of the Petitioner.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that she belongs to caste Kumbhar, which is Other Backward Class (OBC). It is contended that in January, 2020, the elections for village Panchayat of Nrusinhwadi, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur were held and the Petitioner contested the said election for the post of Sarpanch and she was elected as Sarpanch. It is contended that the Petitioner had contested the said election on the basis of her caste. The caste certificate was sent for verification to the Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the complainants who contested the Petitioner’s claim of caste Kumbhar. The Vigilance Cell was directed to conduct enquiry and a report dated 22nd September, 2021 came to be submitted by Vigilance Cell to the Respondent No. 1.

4. It is contended that the Respondent No.1-Scrutiny Committee conducted hearing wherein both the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed documents and affidavits in support of their case and after considering the same along with the Vigilance Cell report, by the impugned Order dated 17th December, 2021, the Respondent No.1 has invalidated the Petitioner’s caste claim.

5. Mr. Patwardhan, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the documents submitted by the Petitioner in support of her case have not been properly considered by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee. He contended that the Vigilance Cell Report is discarded by the Respondent No.1 Scrutiny Committee without giving any reasons. He has invited our attention to various documents produced by Petitioner in support of her case.

6. Per contra, Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the complainants/Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 contended that whether the Petitioner is really a daughter of Basappa Virupax Kumbhar, as asserted by her, is under serious dispute. He contended that the Petitioner’s family belongs to Village Kurni, Taluka Hukkeri of Belagavi which is in Karnataka State and as such Petitioner was not resident of Maharashtra at the time of her birth and as such, she is not entitled to caste benefits here. According to them, the real name of Petitioner’s father is Basavanni Lagamappa Kumbhar, who was resident of Karnataka State and not Maharashtra State. He contended that both the aspects of caste and place of origin of the Petitioner’s family, are under serious challenge. He also invited our attention to various documents produced by Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 opposing the Petitioner’s caste claim.

7. Ms. Solunke, learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.1 supported the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee. She contended that the there are obvious contradictions in the evidence produced by the Petitioner. She has relied upon a Judgment of this Court pronounced on 10.03.2021 in W. P .No. 1322 of 2020 in similar set of facts, wherein caste claim was rejected.

REASONS & CONCLUSIONS

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. It is settled position of law that the Vigilance Cell Report is not evidence of caste per se and though it has persuasive value, the same is not binding upon the Caste Scrutiny Committee. However, there is duty cast upon the Scrutiny Committee to give reasons, if it rejects the Vigilance Cell Report. In this backdrop, we proceed to scan various documents produced by the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 about the Petitioner’s claim and also the impugned Ord