Honble Amitava Lala, J.—The aforesaid four writ petitions have been placed before us for the purposes of analogous hearing. Three writ petitions out of four writ petitions have been filed by one candidate for the Municipal Election, whose candidature was rejected due to his caste certificate. The fourth writ petition has been filed by an independent candidate, who had withdrawn his candidature in support of the petitioner herein who made the aforesaid writ petitions.

2. The dispute is whether the petitioner belongs to the caste of Backward Muslim community known as "Sheikh Sarwari" or not ? In the Schedule of the relevant notification, we find that there is a "comma" in between the words Sheikh and Sarwari as annexed to the writ petition. However, a clarification has been made by the Judgment of a learned Single Judge rendered in the case of Shamiuddin v. Additional District Judge, Mathura and others, 1998 (16) L.C.D. 424, that Sheikh includes the word Sarwari. Such argument of Sri S.M.A. Kazmi learned senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was not opposed by Sri Murlidhar learned senior Counsel opposing the writ petition. His contention is that it is to be proved that whether the petitioner belongs to backward class known as "Sheikh Sarwari" or not ?

3. However, the arguments were advanced by the parties. During course of such arguments, a further question arose with regard to authority of Tehsildar to pass the order impugned dated 30th June, 2007. According to Mr. Murlidhar, the Tehsildar passed such order on the basis of the earlier order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.3.2007 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55051 of 2006, Noman Masood v. State of U.P. and others. Therefore, the Tehsildar upon being empowered by the order appreciate the fact, rejected the caste certificate and also rejected the application of the petitioner. We enquired about the power or authority of a Committee when Sri Kazmi cited a Judgment rendered in the case of Gayatrilaxmi Bapurao Nagpure v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 1996 SC 1338, paragraphs 15 and 18 of such judgment are quoted below :

"15. It is true that this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patils case (1994 AIR SCW 4116) (supra) has observed (Para 14) :

The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a Court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have been led the Committee ultimately recorded the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.

18. The High Court without appreciating the probative value of the documents placed before it has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant by simply accepting the conclusions reached by the second-respondent Committee. Undoubtedly, in cases of this type, the burden heavily lies on the applicant who seeks such a certificate. That does not mean that the authorities have no role to play in finding out the correctness or otherwise of the claim for issue of a caste certificate. We are of the view that the concerned authorities must also play a role in assisting the Committee to arrive at a correct decision. In this case, except the documents produced by the appellant, nothing has been produced by the concerned authorities to arrive at a different conclusion."

4. Now, today at the time of beginning of the argument, Sri Murlidhar, learned senior Counsel in support of the respondent-candidate contended before this Court that Article 243-ZG (b) of the Constitution of India as incorporated by way of amendment for the purpose of M