SANJAY BHASKAR RAIMULKAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, ELECTED MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY IN THE ELECTION HELD IN 2014 FROM MEHKAR CONSTITUENCY, RESIDENT OF : AT AND PO: NANDRA DHANDE, TQ. MEHKAR,DIST. BULDANA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TRIBAL WELFARE AND SOCIAL JUSTICE, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 400 032

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee, Akola, Amravati Division, dated 19.01.2016, invalidating caste claim of petitioner as belonging to 'Balai'(Scheduled Caste).In fact, the petitioner as well as the respondents based their arguments upon the order which stipulates the date as 31.12.2015.

(2.) The Competent Authority issued the caste certificate of the petitioner in the year 2006 as 'Balai' (Scheduled Caste). Mehkar (Dist. Buldana) Legislative Constituency seat was served for Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner was elected to Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Mehkar constituency in the year 2009. In the year 2014, he again contested the election of Member of Legislative Assembly against the seat reserved for S.C.candidate and was elected. The respondent No. 5 filed a complaint with the Scrutiny Committee about the caste of the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, verification process of the caste was initiated. On 31.12015 out of three members, two members of the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner; whereas the third member of the Committee proceeded to pass a separate dissenting order, validating caste claim of the petitioner as 'Balai' (Scheduled Caste). The order passed by the majority members of the Scrutiny Committee is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) As far as rival contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties are concerned, it would be advantageous to make a brief reference to it. Learned senior counsel Mr.C.S. Kaptan with Mr.Ghare for petitioner, vehemently argued that prior to deciding the caste claim of the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner was elected in October/November, 2009. The Scrutiny Committee called for the old records of pre-Constitutional era from 1912 onwards from the Revenue Department, which reflected the caste of forefathers of petitioner as 'Sutar Balai'. The new documents which were post Constitutional era reveals the caste as 'Sutar' (OBC). Learned senior counsel contended that pre-Constitutional documents are of greater probative value while determining the caste claim of the candidate. He submitted that since the forefathers of the petitioner were conducting the business of carpentry, the word 'Sutar' appears in the entries of old registers. According to him, the Scrutiny Committee has ignored the pre-Constitutional record, although these entries established the fact that caste of the petitioner was Balai and suspicious entries are taken for corroboration to discard the petitioner's caste claim. Mr. Kaptan stated that the petitioner is unable to explain the erasers in old entries and so also it is nobody's case that those documents are fraudulent entries and there is an interpolation thereof. Those entries are examined by Handwriting Expert and the authenticity of those entries has been established. He urged that the report of Vigilance Cell cannot be the basis for finding of the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has to apply its mind to the material on record and not to rely upon the opinion of Vigilance Cell. It is submitted that it was not necessary to use the word 'false' in the 'concluding' part of the order of the Scrutiny Committee, although the Committee has not given a finding on that line.