KUNDAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner as also the learned AGP extensively. We have also perused the original file of the scrutiny committee in respect of petitioner as well as the validity holders, he is relying upon namely Niranjan Shridhar Salunke and Sushil Shridhar Salunke.

(2.) It transpires that though the petitioner has been relying upon the validity certificates of Niranjan and Sushil, none of them has filed affidavit in his support. Precisely for this reason, the committee refused to extend the benefit of those two validities to the petitioner.

(3.) Today the learned advocate for the petitioner tenders across the bar affidavits sworn by Niranjan and Sushil. Those are taken on record and marked as 'X-1' and 'X-2' for the purpose of identification. Both of them have supported the petitioner and have given a uniform genealogy as has been relied upon by the petitioner as under :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_131_LAWS(BOM)9_2023_1.jpg</IMG>