Bombay High Court
Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 26 April, 2018
Author: S. V. Gangapurwala
Bench: S. V. Gangapurwala, A. M. Dhavale
1 wp 7518.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7518 OF 2016
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11171 OF 2016
Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin,
Age: 47 Years, Occu.: Social work,
R/o. House No. 1-16-28, Barudgarnala,
Juna Bazar, Aurangabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
(Through its Secretary),
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2. The SC, VJNT, OBC & S.B.C. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1, Aurangabad,
Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad
3. The Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate,
Aurangabad
4. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad
5. Aurangabad Municipal Corporation,
Aurangabad,
Through its Municipal Commissioner
6. Rana Kausar Syed Shaharukh,
Age: 27 years, Occu.: Household,
R/o.: Kabadipura, Aurangabad
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 :::
2 wp 7518.16
7. The State Election Commission of Maharashtra,
Through its Commissioner,
Thr New Administration Building,
Rajguru Martyr Square,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai - 400 032 .. Respondents
Shri R. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri P. S. Patil, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri S. S. Tope, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.
Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No. 7.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &,
A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.
Reserved for Judgment on : 27th March, 2018
Judgment pronounced on : 26th April, 2018
JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :
1. The petitioner assails the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner of 'Momin' (OBC).
2. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 04.04.2015, the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee, after considering the vigilance report and all the documents on record validated the caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to 'Momin' (OBC). The certificate of validity is also issued to the ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 3 wp 7518.16 petitioner. The petitioner contested the election of Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, held in the year - 2015, from Ward No. 21, reserved for Backward Class of citizens. The petitioner emerged victorious by defeating respondent No. 6. The Respondent No. 6 and two other persons were unable to swallow the defeat and therefore approached the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee by filing a complaint against the petitioner. The learned counsel submits that once the validity certificate is granted by the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee becomes functus officio. The Scrutiny Committee does not have the power of review, unless and until the statute bestows power of review on an authority. The authority does not have power of review. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others reported in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 437.
3. Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel further submits that Section 7 (2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-nofified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 4 wp 7518.16 Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2000 is explicitly clear. This court has also not issued any directions directing the Scrutiny Committee to reopen the case of the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee exercised the power of review not vested in it. On this count itself the Judgment is bad in law.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel further submits that on the basis of a complaint of one Sajid Khan Gulam Mehabub Khan and respondent No. 6, the respondent No. 2 without issuing any notice to the petitioner straightway referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for further inquiry. There is no provision to hold a second inquiry, particularly when no one had questioned the genuineness or inadequacy, if any, in respect of earlier inquiry. Sajid Khan Gulam Mehabub Khan is a stranger to the proceedings who had not suffered any legal injury. He cannot claim to have any locus standi to raise grievance against the petitioner. His complaint could not have been entertained. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 5 wp 7518.16 a case of Ayyuubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors reported in 2012 AIR SCW 6177. The learned counsel submits that the Vigilance Cell inquiry was conducted and the respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee directed petitioner to submit her explanation about non availability of record with Tahasildar, Aurangabd in respect of issuance of caste certificate in favour of petitioner. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 6 filed petition before this court bearing Writ Petition No. 335 of 2016, seeking directions against the respondent No. 2 to decide the complaint in respect of caste validity of petitioner. The writ petition came up for hearing before this court on 14.1.2016. The respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee made a statement before this court that the process of review in respect of caste validity of petitioner would be decided within four months. On the basis of the said statement, the writ petition is disposed of. The second copy of inquiry report was not submitted along with the show cause notice to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel further submits that the whole process ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 6 wp 7518.16 adopted by the Scrutiny Committee is unknown to law. The learned counsel submits that the documents collected by the Vigilance Cell including statements of the Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Primary School and Headmaster Zia-Ul-Ullum Girls High School were not supplied to the petitioner. The Headmasters were not called before the committee nor their statements were recorded by the Scrutiny Committee. The original school registers were also not screened.
6. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel strenuously contends that the Scrutiny Committee discarded most clinching evidence of the year - 1354 fasli (1944) viz. copy of Nikahnama of the uncle of petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee could not have discarded the document of 1354 fasli only on the ground that person namely Abdul Rauf Ismail Khan who has solemnized the marriage is not the resident of Pathri village. The said person is not alive. The Scrutiny Committee was wrong in discarding the true document. The document being old would have more probative value. The learned counsel submits that the Scrutiny Committee has erroneously doubted the correctness of the entries recorded in ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 7 wp 7518.16 the school record of the petitioner and her relatives on the basis of statement recorded by the Vigilance Officer during inquiry. The statements of these Headmasters were recorded under pressure exerted by the vigilance officer and under the influence of the complainant. The learned counsel submits that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have given opportunity to cross- examine the Headmasters of the respective schools. There was no reason for the Scrutiny Committee to discard the old document of 1354 fasli i.e. Nikahnama of the uncle of the petitioner.
7. It is submitted that when the first vigilance inquiry is conducted, no doubts were raised with regard to the documents. This itself shows that the second vigilance inquiry was done under pressure and to favour the complainant. The Judgment of the Scrutiny Committee is bad in law. The learned counsel further submits that the report of the Tahsildar that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner is not issued by his office is incorrect. The registers maintained by the Tahsildar of the caste certificates issued are not in proper order. Even the register is ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 8 wp 7518.16 not maintained in a proper sequence. It is creating doubt about the registers being maintained in the regular course. Not much importance can be attached to such a register to non suit the petitioner and come to the conclusion that the caste certificate was never issued by the authority.
8. Mr. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader supports the Judgment and submits that even original register is produced before the Scrutiny Committee and before this court which shows that the caste certificate produced by the petitioner is forged and fabricated document and was never issued by the office of the Tahsildar. The claim of the petitioner was based on forged and false documents. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that even the school record of the petitioner was manipulated. The petitioner had produced the forged Transfer Certificates. In the Transfer Certificates produced of 5 th standard the caste 'Momin' is recorded but in the original school register in column of caste only 'Muslim' is recorded and caste 'Momin' is nowhere recorded. The same was in respect of the Transfer Certificates produced of her children Mohammed ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 9 wp 7518.16 Aarifuddin Mohammed Faiyazuddin and Mohammed Imtiyazuddin Mohammed Faiyazuddin. In their Transfer Certificates caste is mentioned as 'Momin', the caste 'Momin' is not mentioned in the original register. The petitioner had produced forged and fabricated documents. The petitioner had produced the Transfer Certificate of her real brother Anwaroddin Shafiyyodin in which caste was recorded as 'Muslim - Momin' and the date of admission is 27.06.1967. Whereas in the original register of the school the name of said Anwaroddin Shafiyyodin was not found in the register at Serial No. 1201 of the year 1967. Even the Headmaster denied the handwriting over the Transfer Certificate. The Nikahnama is validly discarded, the same is not proved. The Scrutiny Committee has rightly invalidated the claim.
9. Mr. Barlinge, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 submits that all documents produced by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee are forged and fabricated documents. When the earlier validity is obtained on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and is obtained fraudulently the Scrutiny Committee ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 10 wp 7518.16 can reopen its case. Fraud vitiates the earlier validity. The learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Division Bench in a case of Smt. Sangita Sharad Kolse Vs. Sate of Maharashtra and others reported in 2006 (5) ALL MR 565.
10. With the assistance of learned counsel for respective parties we have gone through the Judgment, the record and proceedings of the Scrutiny Committee.
11. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition that the authority can exercise the power of review only if the powers are bestowed by the statute. De-hors the statute, the powers of review are not available to the authority. The Apex Court in a case of Ayyuubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors (supra) has observed that a third person ordinarily has no locus standi to raise any grievance whatsoever. However, in exceptional circumstances even if his bonafides are doubted, but the issue raised by him in the opinion of the court requires consideration, the court may proceed suo-motu in said respect.
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 :::
11 wp 7518.16
12. It is settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates every solemn act. If a candidate practices fraud upon the Scrutiny Committee and the earlier validity is granted on account of the fraud practiced upon it, then in such a case the Scrutiny Committee is not denuded of its power to correct its own mistake and revisit its order. A person guilty of fraud cannot claim any right derived to him on the basis of an order obtained by fraud. Even otherwise, the respondent No. 6 has approached this court seeking directions against the respondent - Scrutiny Committee to decide his complaint about issuance of validity certificate to the petitioner on the basis of false and forged documents. In the said writ petition the Scrutiny Committee made a statement that it will decide the complaint within four months as such it was not necessary for this court to pass separate order and disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 6. It is in these circumstances, the Scrutiny Committee has revisited its order granting validity to the petitioner.
13. The Scrutiny Committee on receiving the complaint had asked for the vigilance cell report. The vigilance was conducted. ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 :::
12 wp 7518.16
14. It would appear that the earlier validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was on the basis of a non speaking order and the vigilance officer submitted the report in most casual manner. Even he did not take pains to verify the original record. The earlier vigilance dated 01.04.2014, in fact, cannot be said to be vigilance report. The vigilance officer is expected to verify the documents produced with the original record but instead of doing so has only submitted the documents which the petitioner had submitted. The first vigilance report dated 01.04.2015, on the basis of which the earlier validity was issued is in a regional language, reads thus -
tk-dz-ni@tkizi@pkS-vgoky@2015&16@12 dk;kZy;] iksfyl mi&vf/k{kd n{krk iFkd tk-iz-i-] vkSjaxkckn foHkkx] vkSjaxkckn-
fnukad & 1@4@2015- izfr] ek- v/;{k egksn;] foHkkxh; tkr izek.ki= iMrkG.kh lferh dz-1 vkSjaxkckn foHkkx] vkSjaxkckn-
fo"k; & 'kfdyk csxe fQ;ktks|hu jk- cq<hysu] tquk cktkj] vkSjaxkckn ;kaps eksehe tkrh nkO;klaca/kkus pkSd'kh vgoky lknj dj.ksckcr-
lanHkZ & 1½ lferh fu.kZ;kuqlkj n{krk iFkdkl izkIr fn-28@3@2015 izdj.k fuoM.kqd ¼Vksdu dza-178218½ 2½ n{krk iFkd vkod dz- izkIr fnukad & 30@3@2015 ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 13 wp 7518.16 egksn;] vkiY;k dk;kZy;kps oj ueqn lanHkkZfdar i=kizek.ks mijksDr mesnokjkP;k tkrh ckcrP;k izdj.kkr n{krk iFkdkekQZr pkSd'kh dj.;kr vkyh vkgs- R;kpk vgoky [kkyhyizek.ks lknj dj.;kr ;sr vkgs-
1½ mesnokjkps uko & 'kfdyk csxe fQ;ktks|hu 2½ nkok dsysyh tkr & eksehu
3½ pkSd'kh vf/kdkjh & vfouk'k eks- xhj ] iksfyl fufj{kd] n{krk iFkd] vkSjaxkckn-
4½ 'kkys; pkSd'kh & 1½ mesnokj 'kfdyk csxe fQ;ktks|hu ;kauh R;kaps f>;k my myqe xyZ gk;Ldwy vkSjaxkckn ;sFkhy b;Rrk 5 oh P;k Vh-lh- ph Nk;kafdr izr tksMyh vlwu R;kr tkr uksan eksehu vls uewn vkgs- izos'k fn-11@6@1979 2½ mesnokj ;kauh R;kapk eqyxk eks-Qstku eks- fQ;ktks|hu ;kaps 'kkys; f'k{k.k gs ryr gk;Ldwy rk- ft-vkSjaxkckn ;sFks >kys vlwu R;k 'kkGsP;k b;Rrk 5 oh rs 10 oh P;k Vh-lh- ph Nk;kafdr izr lkscr tksMyh vlwu R;kr tkr uksan eksehu vls uewn vkgs- izos'k fn-16@6@2008 3½ mesnokj ;kauh R;kapk eqyxk eks-bfEr;kt eks-fQ;ktks|hu ;kaps 'kkys; f'k{k.k gs ryr gk;Ldwy rk-ft-vkSjaxkckn ;sFks >kys vlwu R;k 'kkGsP;k b;Rrk 5 oh rs 10 oh P;k Vh-lh- ph Nk;kafdr izr lkscr tksMyh vlwu R;kr tkr uksan eksehu vls uewn vkgs- izos'k fn-15@6@2007 4½ mesnokj ;kauh R;kapk eqyxk eks-vkjsQks|hu eks-fQ;ktks|hu ;kaps 'kkys; f'k{k.k gs ryr gk;Ldwy rk-ft-vkSjaxkckn ;sFks >kys vlwu R;k 'kkGsP;k b;Rrk 5 oh rs ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 14 wp 7518.16 10 oh P;k Vh-lh- ph Nk;kafdr izr lkscr tksMyh vlwu R;kr tkr uksan eksehu vls uewn vkgs- izos'k fn-12@6@2006 5½ x`g pkSd'kh & mesnokj ;kaP;k x`g pkSd'khe/;s mesnokj ;kaP;kdMwu fuosnu ?ksrys vlrk R;kauh fuosnukr R;kaP;k lektkrhy bfrgklkckcr lkaxrkauk rs eksehu tkrhps vkgs- rlsp mesnokj ;kauh R;kaP;k lektkrhy bfrgkl] pkfyfjrh o ijaijsckcr ?ksrysys fuosnu QkWeZ lkscr tksMys vkgs-
mesnokj ;kaP;k x`gpkSd'khe/;s [kkyhy yksdkauk mesnokj ;kaP;k tkrhckcr fopkjiwl d:u R;kaps tckc R;k O;fDraps vksG[ki=kph Nk;kafdr izr lkscr tksMyh vkgs-
1½ Jh-eksgean lkfn[k ek-mLeku o; 60 o"kZ] /kank- O;olk; tkr eqfLye jk- tquk cktkj vkSjaxkckn 2½ Jh-l;n Qstk|hu l;n lbZnks|hu] o; 56 o"ksZ /kank O;kikj - tkr eqfLye jk-tquk cktkj vkSjaxkckn oj uewn vuqdzekad 1 o 2 ;k O;fDrus R;kaP;k tckckr lkaxrkuk rs ojhy uewn fBdk.kh jkgrkr- mesnokj o R;kaps ifjokj R;kaP;k xYyhr jkgr vlY;kus rs R;kauk R;kaP;k ygkui.kkiklwu vksG[krkr- R;kaps oMhy 'ks[k 'kfQ;ks|hu ;kauk vksG[kr vlwu R;kaP;k Lor% P;k ?kjh /kkxk o nksjs cuo.;kpk O;olk; djr gksrs- rlsp eh R;kaps Hkkm e>jks|hu 'kfQ;ks|hu ;kauk vksG[kr vlwu R;kapk Vsyjpk O;olk; vkgs- nqljs Hkkm gkfQtks|hu 'kfQ;ks|hu ;kaph xWjst pk O;olk; vkgs] frljs Hkkm vUojks|hu 'kfQ;ks|hu ;kapk tfeuhP;k [kjsnh fodzh dj.;kpk O;olk; vkgs o R;kaph tkr gh eksehu vkgs- 6½ brj iqjkok & 1½ mesnokj ;kauh R;kaps dk;Zdkjh naMkf/kdkjh vkSjaxkckn ft-vkSjaxkckn ;kauh ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 15 wp 7518.16 fuxZfer dsysys tkr izek.ki=kph eqG izr lkscr tksMyh vkgs- R;kr tkr uksan eksehu vls uewn vkgs-
;k ckcr ek- dk;Zdkjh naMkf/kdkjh vkSjaxkkckn ;kauk i= tk-dz-Mh-ih-100 fn- 31@03@2015 vUo;s mesnokjkl ns.;kr vkysY;k eksehu tkrhps izek.ki= R;kapsp dk;kZy;krwu fuxZfer dj.;kr vkysys vkgs fdaok ukgh ;kckcr vfHkizk; dGfo.;kph fouarh dsyh gksrh-
2½ mesnokj ;kauh :-100@& P;k LVWEi isijoj oa'kkoGh r;kj d:u lkscr fnyh vkgs-
,danfjr ojhyizek.ks pkSd'kh dj.;kr vkyh vkgs- rjh vgoky vafre fu.kZ;kLro lknj-
lkscr lgi=s ¼ iku dza 1 rs ½ lsosr lfou; lknj ekQZr ¼,-,e-xhj ½ iksfyl fufj{kd n{krk iFkd ¼tk-iz-i-½ dk;kZy;
foHkkxh; lekt dY;k.k vkf/kdkjh vkSjaxkckn foHkkx vkSjaxkckn-
15. Perusal of the said report it is clear that the vigilance officer did not take pains to even verify the certificates produced by the petitioner with the original record of the respective schools. The caste certificate was also not verified from the original register. The vigilance officer had asked the Executive Magistrate to give his report whether the caste certificate is ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 16 wp 7518.16 issued from his office. However, he did not wait for the report to be submitted. The letter was given on 31.03.2015 to the Executive Magistrate to submit report and on 01.04.2015, the vigilance officer submitted the report. He did not even wait for the receipt of the report from the Executive Magistrate.
16. When upon the complaint of the respondent the vigilance was directed to be conducted. The vigilance officer visited the schools, who according to the petitioner had issued the Transfer Certificates recording the caste 'Momin'. The second vigilance report dated 24.07.2015, clearly states that the vigilance officer has visited the respective schools and had verified the original record. The Transfer Certificate issued to the petitioner by Ziya- Ul-Ullum Girls School produced by the petitioner records caste as 'Momin' and the date of admission in the school is 11.06.1979. The vigilance officer on 01.07.2015 visited the Zia-Ul-Ullum Girls High School. The name of the petitioner appeared in the original register at Serial No. 5250 and in the original register in the caste column the caste 'Momin' is not recorded. Even in the original Transfer Certificate Book the caste is not recorded as ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 17 wp 7518.16 'Momin'. The school has given in writing that the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner is not in accordance with the Transfer Certificate issued by the school. Even the application for admission of the petitioner does not record the caste as 'Momin' and it record caste as 'Muslim'. The petitioner had produced the Transfer Certificate of her son Mohammed Faisal Mohammed Faiyazuddin of Talat High School, Aurangabad to show that the caste is recorded as 'Muslim- Momin' in his transfer certificate. The same is with regard to the other sons Mohammed Aarifuddin Mohammed Faiyazuddin and Mohammed Imtiyazuddin Mohammed Faiyazuddin. The vigilance officer visited Talat High School, Aurangabad and was shown the original register. The original Transfer Certificate Register records the name of the sons of the petitioner but in the caste column only 'Muslim' is written and 'Momin' is not appearing in the original record. It is stated by the Headmaster that the handwriting on the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner is different. The petitioner had produced the Transfer Certificate of her real brother Mazroddin Shafiyyodin of Dnyaneshwar Vidyalaya, Begampura, Aurangabad to show that ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 18 wp 7518.16 the caste is recorded as 'Muslim (Momin)'. The vigilance officer visited the Dnyaneshwar School and was shown the original register by the Headmaster. The serial number shown in the Transfer Certificate did not match with the original record. The Headmaster stated that the handwriting on the Transfer Certificate produced by the petitioner of her brother Mazroddin Shafiyyodin is different. The vigilance report further says that the petitioner produced the another certificate of the school record of brother Anwaroddin Shafiyyodin. Upon perusing the original record it transpired to the vigilance officer that on the serial number which is stated in the certificate produced by the petitioner of her brother Anwaroddin Shafiyyodin the name of Anwaroddin Shafiyyodin does not appear in the original record and the Headmaster stated that the handwriting is not of the Headmaster or Mr. Wagh. The vigilance officer also approached the office of the Executive Magistrate to verify the caste certificate produced by the petitioner dated 28.12.1993. Upon perusal of the original register it is found that at the said serial number no such caste certificate is issued to the petitioner. ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 :::
19 wp 7518.16
17. All these facts would show that each and every document which the petitioner has produced is a false and fabricated document. Even the caste certificate produced on record appears to be forged document. We have also perused the original register of issuance of caste certificates maintained by the Executive Magistrate. We tried to verify the caste certificate produced by the petitioner bearing serial number 11972 dated 28.12.1993. We verified it by date and also by the serial number. The entry of the caste certificate does not appear in the original register of the year - 1993, either by reference to the date or serial number. The Tahsildar had also issued letter dated 14.07.2015 clarifying that no such caste certificate is issued to the petitioner and the caste certificate at serial number 11972 is issued to one Afsar Khan of 'Tadvi' caste.
18. It would appear that even the caste certificate produced is forged document. All the Transfer Certificates produced by the petitioner of her children, brothers appear to be forged. In all these Transfer Certificates, the caste is shown to be recorded as 'Momin' but in the original record no such caste 'Momin' is ::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 ::: 20 wp 7518.16 recorded. The petitioner is placing reliance on the Nikahnama of her uncle. The petitioner has not filed any affidavit of the witnesses to that Nikahnama or the uncle or the children of the uncle about the genuineness of the Nikahnama. The said Nikahnama is not proved. Even if we assume that the Scrutiny Committee had discarded the Nikahnama on the ground that the person who had solemnized that Nikahnama does not stay at Pathri village and assuming that the said person is no more still the petitioner has not proved the Nikahnama as required.
19. Considering all the aforesaid conspectus of the matter we do not think that the Scrutiny Committee has committed any error in invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.
20. The writ petition as such is dismissed.
21. In view of disposal of writ petition, civil application also stands disposed of.
[A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 :::
21 wp 7518.16
22. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition the petitioner was protected, the said protection be continued. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said request.
23. Considering the submission that, during the pendency of the writ petition petitioner was protected, the said protection is continued for a period of four (4) weeks from today. Needless to state, on lapse of four (4) weeks protection granted by this court shall come to an end.
[A. M. DHAVALE, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
::: Uploaded on - 02/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/05/2018 00:50:00 :::