VASANT PANDURANG NARWADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to our order passed on 9/8/2001, the caste verification committee has adjudicated upon the caste claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No 4219/2000 and submitted a report, dated 21 9 2001 to us holding that the petitioner does not belong to "kunbi" caste and the "maratha" caste is not a sub-caste of Kunbi castes. By our order dated 24. 9. 2001, we had granted leave for amendment and instead of amending the petition memo, the petitioner preferred to substitute the same and this was allowed by us and in the said substituted petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality, propriety and justifiability of the scrutiny committee's report.

(2.) WE have heard the respective parties at length including Shri B. L. Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2885/2000 and we have proceeded to decide the instant petitions finally on their being restored by the apex Court vide its order dated 20. 7. 2001.

(3.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4219/2000 was purportedly issued a caste certificate on 28. 12. 1993 that he belongs to "kunbi" caste, which is listed in the other backward classes by the State Government. Based on this caste certificate, he contested the Municipal Corporation election held in February, 2000 from Ward No. 63 (Nageshwarwadi) and he got elected. Subsequently, he also got elected as Deputy Mayor of the Aurangabad Municipal corporation and in the meanwhile his caste status was challenged by filing a complaint with the Divisional Commissioner. The Municipal Commissioner, aurangabad referred 39 caste certificates in respect of all the Corporators declared elected against reserved seats, to the caste scrutiny committee pursuant to the communication dated 17. 4. 2000 received from the State Election Commission. By order dated 28. 8. 2000, the committee held that in view of the report dated 17. 7. 2000 received from the Taluka Executive Magistrate that no caste certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued by the said office, there was no question of verification of the petitioner's caste claim and the proceedings were, thus, closed. This order came to be challenged before us in Writ petition No. 4219/2000 and by our common judgment dated 11-10-2000, we had dismissed the petition, whereas Writ Petition No. 2885/2000 came to be allowed by the said judgment and the election of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4219/2000 was set aside. Our judgment came to be challenged in Civil appeal No. 4409/2001 and 4410/2001, which came to be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order passed by us and the petition was remanded for fresh decision after the scrutiny committee would adjudicate the petitioner's caste claim de-novo. Impliedly, both the petitions are required to be decided afresh and hence we proceed to do the same. Writ Petition No. 4219/2000