3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3476 OF 2026 Afrozbegum Yusuf Khalife/ Afroz Mohammed Zari Aged 39 years, Residing at 1138, Guravwadi, Kodavli Rajapur, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri – 416702. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Justice Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032. 2. The District Caste Certiicate Scrutiny Committee, Ratnagiri District, Through its Deputy Director and Member Secretary, having its oice at Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Samajik Nyay Bhavan, Kuvarbav, Opposite Power House, Ratnagiri-415612. 3. The Chief Oicer, Rajapur Municipal Council, Having its oice at Rajapur, District Ratnagiri – 416702. 4. The District Collector, Ratnagiri, Collector Oice, Ratnagiri, Near Jaystambh, Ratnagiri- 415612. 5. Tahasildar, Rajapur, The Returning Oicer, Rajapur Municipal Council, Having its oice at Rajapur, District Ratnagiri 416702. Gaikwad RD 1 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc 6. Sub Divisional Oicer, Rajapur, District: Ratnagiri. 416702. 7. Nilofar Muddasar Mukadam/ Nilofar Sharfuddin Khalife, Aged Adult residing at At Post Kodavli, Rajapur, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri - 416 702. ....Respondents. —————— Mr. Shrikrishna Ganvabale with Mr. Harshad Sathe, i/b. Mr. Shubham Gangan, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondents-State. Mr. Balaji Shinde with Mr. Dhairyasheel Sutar with Mr. Samiulla M. Patil & Mr. Kunal Patil, for the Respondent No.7. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Reserved on : September 21, 2026. Pronounced on : September 28, 2026. JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.) 1. By consent of both the sides heard inally at the admission stage. 2. By the present writ petition, the Petitioner, who is the elected member of the Respondent No.3-Municipal Council, challenges the order dated 18th July 2026 passed by the Respondent No. 2-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the Petitioner towards the ‘Nhavi’ caste, which comes in the Other Backward Class category (‘OBC’). 3. As the Petitioner got elected from the seat reserved for the OBC, her caste certiicate showing her caste as ‘Nhavi’ came to be referred to the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for veriication. In support of Gaikwad RD 2 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc her claim, the Petitioner submitted several documents, including the validity certiicate issued to one of her blood relatives from the paternal side. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee referred the Petitioner’s claim to the Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry and submitted the report. The copy of the report was given to the Petitioner and she submitted her say to the same. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, after considering the documents on record, passed the impugned order invalidating the claim of the Petitioner. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee invalidated the Petitioner’s claim mainly on the ground that, the profession of the blood relatives of the Petitioner was found to be agriculture, service, etc. There is no dispute in respect of the genealogy submitted by the Petitioner before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. The blood relative of the Petitioner from the paternal side, by name Jameer Nizam Khalife is having the validity certiicate of ‘Nhavi’ caste. The said validity certiicate was challenged by one Ramakant Shantaram Malpekar before this Court in Writ Petition No. 484 of 2015, which came to be dismissed. Nowhere it is the case of the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee that, there was misrepresentation or fraud by the Petitioner. The Petitioner had given detailed reply to the show cause notice issued by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee with the Vigilance Cell Gaikwad RD 3 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc report. As the blood relative of the Petitioner from the parental side is holding the validity certiicate, the Petitioner is entitled for the validity certiicate as per the Maharashtra Caste Certiicate Rules, 2012 (‘Rules of 2012’), which provides that if the applicant produces the validity certiicate of the blood relative from paternal side, the Scrutiny Committee is required to issue the validity certiicate, without asking for any other document or proof. He submits that, the petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 5. It is submitted by the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 that, the Petitioner failed to prove that she belonged to the ‘Nhavi’ caste. During the Vigilance Cell inquiry, the Vigilance Cell recorded the statements of several persons, who stated that the ancestors of the Petitioner were engaged in the profession of agriculture and some were in the services. The Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee passed the impugned order on the basis of the documents available on record. She further submitted that, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee have issued the show cause notice to the said Jameer Nizam Khalife for cancellation of his validity certiicate issued by the concerned Scrutiny Committee. She submitted that, in the light of these facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition be dismissed. 6. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 7, who iled the Gaikwad RD 4 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc complaint before the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee submits that, the Petitioner did not belong to the ‘Nhavi’ caste and supported the contention made by the learned AGP. He submitted that, one Mr. Sharfuddin Zafar Khalife had submitted the aidavit in the above referred Writ Petition No.484 of 2015 stating that Jameer Nizam Khalife and his ancestors did not belong to the ‘Nhavi’ caste. No fault can be found with the impugned order and the petition was liable to be dismissed. 7. With the assistance of both the sides, we have gone through the records. The genealogy of the Petitioner, which was submitted before the Scrutiny Committee, is as follows: egen’kk ‘ks[k ;qlqQ /kksaMw /kekZ tkQj mej lyseku vCnqy djhe ;qlqQ fljkt ‘kjQqíhu vdcj mLeku ‘kkgegen ijohu lyek vCnqy lRrkj vCnqy jfgeku vkQjkst flíhdk dkSlj vQty vnuku fu>keqíhu ‘kkgckt ‘kkguokt vkejhu vkQjhu ‘kckuk rcLlqe tehj ijost js’kek fuyksQj ;klhu 8. Perusal of the impugned order goes to show that, the claim is invalidated mainly on the ground that, the ancestors and blood relatives of the Petitioner were not found to be in the work of hair cutting, i.e., Gaikwad RD 5 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc were not barber. The impugned order further shows that, the validity issued to Jameer Nizam Khalife was discarded on the ground that, the pre-Constitution era documents, as submitted by the complainant, do not support the Petitioner's claim and the said documents were not before the Scrutiny Committee, when the validity certiicate was issued to Jameer Nizam Khalife. While considering the point as to whether the Petitioner proved that, she belonged to the ‘Nhavi’ caste, which comes under OBC category, there is categoric observation in the impugned order that, generally the mention of caste is not found in the school or the revenue documents of the people belonging to the Muslim religion. 9. There is no dispute about the aforesaid genealogy, which shows that Jameer Nizam Khalife is the blood relative of the Petitioner from the paternal side. It is also not in dispute that the said Jameer Nizam Khalife is having validity certiicate, as belonging to the ‘Nhavi’ caste. Undisputedly, one Ramakant Shantaram Malpekar had iled Writ Petition No.484 of 2015 challenging the validity certiicate issued to Jameer Nizam Khalife and the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 13th June 2019. The copy of the said judgment is placed on record. It would not be out of place to reproduce the relevant observations from the said judgment : 13. Having dealt with the preliminary challenge to the tenability of the petition, we proceed to dealt with the merits Gaikwad RD 6 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc of the matter. As observed earlier, the thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.3's claim is fraudulent. The discrepancy in the entry regarding the religion/caste, “in the admission register” and “the School Leaving Certiicate” of the father of the respondent No.3, is the substratum on which the ediice of submission of fraud is rested. 14. Shri Mendadkar, further submitted that once there is material to indicate that the impugned order is obtained by practicing fraud, then the respondent No.2-Committee could not have lent its approval to such conduct on the part of the respondent No.3 and the order is thus vitiated in its entirety. A strong reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Govt. of A.P. & Ors.1, wherein, after adverting to the numerous authorities on vitiating efects of fraud on the judicial proceedings, the following observations were made :- “22 It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the irst Court or by the inal Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.” 15. It is indubitable that fraud vitiates every act. However, the material on record does not indicate that the aforesaid proposition would govern the facts of the instant case with equal force. In the impugned order, the respondent No.2- Committee has considered the challenge based on the allegations of fraud in the context of discrepancy in the “admission register” and “school leaving certiicate”. The Committee found that during the course of vigilance enquiry, the vigilance oicer recorded the statement of one Mr. Arif Merchant, the chairman of Dawoodbhoy Fazalbhoy Education 1 (2007) 4 SCC 221 Gaikwad RD 7 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc Trust to the efect that the grandfather of the respondent No.3 had made an application subsequently to correct the entries in the school register and on the basis of the said application, the school leaving certiicate came to be issued. However, the original application was untraceable. It is pertinent to note that the school leaving certiicate of the father of the respondent No.3 came to be issued in the year 1971. The respondent No.3 was born in 1981 and the aforesaid school leaving certiicate was sought to be used by the respondent No.3 in 1999. In the circumstances, in the opinion of the Committee, no fraud can be attributed to the act and conduct of the respondent No.3. 16. The aforesaid approach of the respondent No.2-Committee appears justiiable. It is not the case that the respondent No.3 in the wake of the controversy subsequently got the entries in the school leaving certiicate corrected. The application was made in the year 1971 and the school leaving certiicate came to be issued thereafter. The respondent No.3 was born in 1981. It might not have been even in the contemplation of the grandfather of the respondent No.3 that the said entry would enure for the beneit of the respondent No.3. 17. Even otherwise, we are of the view that, even if we eschew the said entry in the school leaving certiicate of Muslim-Nhavi, entered against the name of the father of the respondent No.3, from consideration, there is adequate material to justify the claim of the respondent No.3 that he is a Muslim-Nhavi. In the detail vigilance enquiry, the vigilance cell found that the grandfather of the petitioner used to work as a Barber at Paramount Hair Dressing Hall, Raheman Building, Fort, Mumbai-1 from 1959 to 1961. A statement of the owner of the said saloon came to be recorded. During the enquiry, the vigilance oicer had also recorded statements of number of persons who have asserted that the respondent No.3 is a member of Muslim-Nhavi caste. It is not the case that there are no persons who pursue occupation of barber in Muslim religion. 18. We are impelled to record that the respondent No.2- Gaikwad RD 8 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc Committee was also justiied in placing reliance upon, and giving weightage to, the report of the vigilance cell in the backdrop of a judicially recognized fact that in the case of the Muslims, the caste and sub-caste is generally not mentioned in the birth certiicate and other school records. In this context, a proitable reference can be made to a judgment of this Court in the case of Shri Imram A. Ajij Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,2 wherein the following observations were made :- “5 In the present case, after hearing both the parties even considering the impugned order, we have noted that the Respondent-Committee failed to consider the facts and circumstances of the present case speciically when it refers to matters that the Petitioner belongs to “Muslim Julaha” caste. The requirement of documents of the community in question as insisted, in our view, is uncalled for. The very Vigilance Cell report, so prepared based on the material collected by the concerned Oicer, at the relevant time, by recording reasons and/or statements of the people of the locality as well as community, unless a case of fraud and/or mis-representation is made out, can only be required to be interfered with. There is no such reason and/or justiication given. The justiication given is by overlooking the indings of the Committee's report as recorded above. It is quite settled in Madhuri Patil's case (supra) that once the report is in favour of candidate found to be genuine and true, no further action needs be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained or serious doubts are raised. 6. There is nothing on record to show any contra material and/or any objection by any one on record. The inquiry report itself supports the case of the Petitioner based on all the traits, traditions, characteristics and customs of his caste. There is nothing to disbelieve the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell. Respondent no.2 wrongly rejected the documents placed by the Petitioner as caste is mentioned only as Musalman. In the Muslim community, there are few cases in which the caste is 2 2015(4) Mh.L.J. 901 Gaikwad RD 9 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc recorded regularly and/or properly in any Government record. Therefore, the Committee ought to have considered the Vigilance Cell report instead of relying solely upon the documents placed on record by treating it to be unreliable. The Committee must consider in such situation that unless contrary material is placed on record and other documents are not clear as not available in the particular community, the Vigilance Cell report needs to be respected. There is no question of discarding the Vigilance Cell report, the purpose for which is well reconsidered and even recorded by the Apex Court in Madhuri Patil's case and Dayaram 's case (supra).” (Emphasis supplied) 19. In the light of the aforesaid legal position, and the facts of the case at hand, in our view, the respondent No.2-Committee was within its rights in granting caste validity certiicate to the respondent No.3. The circumstances of the case do not warrant exercise of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the indings of fact recorded by the respondent No.2-Committee, which cannot be said to be either perverse or unreasonable. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. The Rules of 2012, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, provides for issuance of validity certiicate to the applicant, if the validity certiicate is issued to the blood relative, without asking for any other documents or proof, by considering the validity certiicate as an important evidence. It appears from the submissions made by learned AGP that, the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee has started the process of cancelling the validity certiicate issued to said Jameer Nizam Khalife, that is the blood relative of the Petitioner. As on date, the validity certiicate issued to said Jameer Nizam Khalife, who is the Gaikwad RD 10 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc blood relative of the Petitioner, is not cancelled and stands valid. Therefore, in the light of the above discussion, the Petitioner cannot be denied the validity certiicate as belonging to the ‘Nhavi’ caste on the basis of the validity certiicate issued to one of the blood relatives, i.e., Jameer Nizam Khalife. However, the issuance of the validity certiicate to the Petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the process of cancellation of the validity certiicate of Jameer Nizam Khalife. In this view of the matter, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is partly allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 18th July 2026 passed by the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the Petitioner's claim towards the ‘Nhavi’ caste is quashed and set aside. iii) The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is directed to issue the validity certiicate to the Petitioner as belonging to the ‘Nhavi’ caste (OBC) within a period of one (1) week from today, which shall be subject to the outcome of the process of cancellation of the validity certiicate of Jameer Nizam Khalife, i.e., coterminus with validity certiicate of Jameer Nizam Khalife iv) The consequential order passed by the Respondent No.4 Gaikwad RD 11 of 12 3-WP-3476-2026 (C)-J.doc cancelling the membership of the Petitioner from the post of the elected Corporator of the Rajapur Municipal Council is quashed and set aside. v) The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 12 of 12 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date: 2026.09.28 22:06:32 +0530