Bombay High CourtNaziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari @ Jabbar ... vs State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary ... on 18 October, 2022Author:R.D.DhanukaBench:R.D. Dhanuka1                     wp-158.21 Naziya\n                    Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\n                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n                                                 WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 2021\n                                                        ALONG WITH\n                                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.921 OF 2019\n\n                    Naziya Banu Abdul Hafiz Ansari @ Jabbar Sofi         )\n                    Having her address at Room No.154,                   )\n                    Hamida Manzil, Near Jawahar Arabic School,           )\n                    Andheri Plot, Jogeshwari (East),                     )\n                    Mumbai 400 060.                                      )    .. Petitioner/\n                                                                                 Applicant\n                              Versus\n                    1. State of Maharashtra                              )\n                    through the Secretary, Social Justice and            )\n                    Special Assistance, Mantralaya,                      )\n                    Mumbai - 400 032.                                    )\n\n\n                    2. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee)\n                    Thane District through its Secretary                 )\n                    having its Office at Ground Floor,                   )\n                    Room Nos.9 and 10, Kokan Bhavan, Belapur,            )\n                    Navi Mumbai.                                         )\n\n\n                    3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai )\n                    through its Commissioner having its officer          )\n                    at Mahapalika Marg, CST,                             )\n                    Mumbai - 400 001.                                    )\n\n       Digitally\n       signed by\n       SANDHYA\nSANDHYA BHAGU\nBHAGU   WADHWA\nWADHWA Date:\n       2022.10.18\n       18:22:22\n       +0530\n                                        2                        wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\n4. The Election Commission                            )\nMantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.                         )\n\n\n5. Neha Khurshid Alam Shaikh                          )\naged 24 years, residing at Ramaj Bhavanji Chawl, )\nIttehad Chowk, Andheri Plot, Jogeshwari (E),          )\nMumbai - 400 060.                                     )     .. Respondents\n\n\n             ---\nMr. Uday        P. Warunjikar a/w          Ms. Puja       Achrekar for the\npetitioner/applicant.\n\nMr.A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P.         a/w   Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for the\nrespondent nos.1 & 2.\n\nMr.Om Suryawanshi for the respondent no.3-MCGM.\nMs. Sarika Shetye i/by Mr.S.B. Shetye for the respondent no.4-State\nElection Commission.\n\nMr.R. K. Mendadkar a/w Mr.C.K. Bhangoji and Mr.Tanaji V. Jadhav for\nthe respondent no.5.\n\nMs.Savita Umesh Ranaj (Kabade), Law Officer, District Caste Certificate\nScrutiny Committee, Thane, (Konkan Bhavan-CBD Belapur) -\nrespondent no.2 present.\n            ---\n\n\n                          CORAM          : R.D. DHANUKA &\n                                           KAMAL KHATA, JJ.\n                          RESERVED ON   : 20TH AUGUST, 2022\n                          PRONOUNCED ON : 18TH OCTOBER, 2022\n\n\nJUDGMENT :-(PER R.D.DHANUKA, J.)\n\n.                    By this petition filed underArticle 226of the\n                                             3                      wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nConstitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of\ncertiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated\n27th August 2019 passed by the respondent no.2 i.e.\nDistrict Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee invalidating\nthe Caste Certificate. The petitioner also seeks order and\ndirection against the respondent no.2 to grant validity to\nthe Caste Certificates dated 4 th November 2016 issued by\nthe Competent Authority to the petitioner.2.                   The petitioner also seeks a writ of certiorari for\nquashing and setting aside the impugned Notification\ndated           6th       January    2022       debarring/disqualifying       the\npetitioner for 6 years from the date of the order for being\nelected             or being        a Councilor of the respondent no.3.\nSome of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this\npetition are as under :-3.                   The petitioner had made an application                    for\ngrant of Caste Certificate to the Competent Authority i.e.\nSub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi.                     It is the case of the\npetitioner that the petitioner belongs to Muslim Julaha,\nan Other Backward Class (OBC) at Serial No.57                           of the\nGovernment Resolution dated 13th November 1967                                  as\namended from time to time.4.                   The Competent Authority              granted a Caste\nCertificate in favour of the petitioner certifying that the\n                                        4                        wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\npetitioner was Muslim Julaha, an OBC at Serial No.57 of\nthe Government Resolution dated 13th November 1967.5.                   The petitioner filed nomination paper for one\nof posts of Corporator/Councilor for the General Election of\nthe respondent Corporation and more particularly                              in\nrespect of Ward No.78. The said post was declared to be\nreserved for other Backward Class Women. Nomination\npaper of the petitioner was declared valid by the Election\nOfficer of the respondent no.4. The election of the said\npost for the period from 2017 to 2022 was held on 12 th\nFebruary 2017.               The petitioner      secured     the highest\nvotes, representing the National Congress Party and was\ndeclared elected. The respondent no.5 had also contested\nthe election from the same ward representing a Political\nParty,          Shiv      Sena   and   was    declared     defeated       and\nunsuccessful. The petitioner was required to submit the\nValidity Certificate of the Caste Certificate issued to the\npetitioner. The petitioner therefore, made an application to\nthe respondent no.2 along with the documents for\nvalidating the caste claim of the petitioner.6.                   The respondent no.5 filed a complaint/objection\nto the said application of the petitioner disputing the caste\nclaim of the petitioner and passed an order dated 21 st\nAugust 2017               and    granted     Validity Certificate    to the\npetitioner.5                          wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc7.                   Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21 st\nAugust 2017 passed by the respondent no.2 Committee\nvalidating                the    caste    claim      of   the     petitioner,       the\nrespondent no.5 filed a Writ Petition bearing No.12122 of\n2017 before this Court. This Court passed an order in the\nsaid writ petition on 12th June 2019 remanding back the\nmatter to the respondent                          no.2 Committee and the\ndirected the respondent no.2 Committee                                to consider\nvarious issues                   formulated       by this Court       in the said\njudgment.8.                   The petitioner thereafter appeared before the\nrespondent no.2 Committee and                             filed     their affidavit\ndated            9th July 2019            along with the documents                 and\ngenealogical tree in support of her caste claim.9.                   The respondent no.2 Committee                      thereafter\nforwarded the said paper to the Vigilance Cell for enquiry\non the issues as directed by this Court as per the\nprovisions of theScheduled Castes and the Scheduled\nTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989(for short "the\nsaid        Act")          and      the   Maharashtra      Scheduled         Castes,\nScheduled                 Tribes,    De-notified     Tribes       (Vimukta     Jatis),\nNomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special\nBackward                  Category        (Regulation      of      Issuance        and\nVerification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 (for short "the\n                                           6                         wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nsaid Rules").10.                  It is the case of the petitioner that the said\nVigilance Officer accordingly visited native village of the\npetitioner and conducted home enquiry as well as school\nenquiry. According to the petitioner, the Vigilance Officer\nalso proceeded to examine and recorded statement of\nrespected and responsible persons from the area including\nthe        representatives          of        local    self-government.       The\nrespondent no.2 Committee thereafter                          summoned the\nVillage Development Officer of Village Godey, District\nPratapgadh to produce the original Pariwar Register which\nwas produced before the respondent no.2 Committee.11.                  The petitioner was served with a notice dated\n31st July             2019    and also with a copy of the Vigilance\nReport dated 22nd July               2019 and 29th July 2019.                 The\npetitioner filed further affidavit                    in support of her caste\nclaim in response to the said notice. The Vigilance Officer\nrecorded              the    statements       of   various    persons         and\nsubmitted a report before the respondent no.2 Committee.12.                  It is the case of the petitioner that the respon-\ndent no. 2 committee ought to have accepted the vigi-\nlance officer's report which confirmed after due verifica-\ntion that the petitioner's grandfather resided in Village\nGodey, District Pratapgadh and is a Muslim Julaha and was\n                                      7                  wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\ncarrying out occupation of weaving. It is submitted that\nbased on the vigilance report the respondent no. 2 com-\nmittee ought to have concluded that the caste claim of the\npetitioner was genuine and granted a validity certificate to\nthe petitioner.13.                  The learned counsel submits that the respon-\ndent no. 2 committee ought to have drawn an adverse in-\nference against the respondent no. 5 and held that the\ndocument relied upon by respondent no. 5 was fabricated\ndocument and had played a fraud on the respondent no. 2\ncommittee.14.                  The learned counsel relied on a registered\nagreement dated 3rd November 2004 to show the speci-\nmen signature of her father was completely different from\nForm AR6 relied upon by respondent no. 5. It was submit-\nted that the existence of stamp over the documents\nevinced that the copies received by the research officer\nwere not copies of the original records of the Deputy Divi-\nsional Officer. Consequently, a forged signature bearing\ndocument was the basis of the conclusion derived by the\nrespondent no. 2 committee.8                    wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc15.                  The learned counsel submitted that the copy of\nthe Pariwar register which showed the caste entry related\nto grandfather as "Muslim" only produced by the respon-\ndent no. 5 ought to have been rejected as the vigilance\nofficer had recorded statement of Village Development\nofficer who confirmed that the sr. no. 161 showed the\nname of Mohd. Salim who was recorded as Muslim Julaha.16.                  The learned counsel drew our attention to the\nschool records of the Primary School, village Godey and\ncontended that the said document proved that the peti-\ntioner's father had left the school on or about 31 st January\n1962 and that he had migrated from village Godey.17.                  The learned counsel requested the court to con-\nsider the evidentiary value of the ration card issued in\nfavour of the petitioner's father to substantiate that the\npetitioner's father is a resident of Bhiwandi. It is submitted\nthat instead of considering the report of the vigilance offi-\ncer that was made in compliance of the High Court direc-\ntions, the Respondent No. 2 committee has erroneously\nreferred to and relied upon extraneous and extra ordinary\nmaterial placed by the Respondent No. 5 before it. The\nlearned counsel further submitted that the Respondent\nNo. 2 committee also failed to give credence to the school\nleaving certificate issued by the Nalanda High School.9                   wp-158.21 Naziya\nBanu A H Ansari (j).doc18.                  It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 com-\nmittee ought not to have rejected the power loom permit\nthat was issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on\nthe ground that he would have been 15 years of age when\nsuch permit was granted and to have considered that\nthere was no provision which prohibited the issue of a\npower loom permit at the age of 15. It is submitted that\nthe Respondent No. 2 committee ought to have given fur-\nther opportunity to the petitioner before concluding the\nhearing. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 com-\nmittee completed the entire exercise in extra ordinary\nhaste and consequently was denied a reasonable opportu-\nnity to prove her case.19.                  The learned counsel of the petitioner further\nsubmits that the petitioner was not given an opportunity\nto deal with the voter information on the date when the\nmatter was closed for order and ought to have given the\npetitioner an opportunity to give her response to the said\ndocument. It is submitted that despite the fact of pen-\ndency of the present writ petition, the Respondent No. 3\nby its letter no. MGC/F/417 dated 21 September 2019 un-\nseated the petitioner based on the order dated 27 August\n2019.10                   wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc20.                  The learned counsel for the petitioner relied\nupon the following judgements in support of this case.a. Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed (Mujawar)\n          @ Bismilla Allabaksh Shikkalagar vs Divisional\n          Caste Certificate Committee No. 1, Solapur\n          through its Member Secretary & Ors;1\n     b. Jamadar Mehaboob Ghudubai versus State of\n          Maharashtra & Ors;2\n     c. Ansar Abdul Rashid Manchekar through his fa-ther and natural guardian Rashid Jikriya\n          Manchekar V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors3\n     d. Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal V/s State of\n          Maharashtra4\n     e. Firdos Ayyub Koti V/s The Divisional Caste Cer-tificate Scrutiny Committee5\n     f. Shri Imran A. Ajij Shaikh V/s State of Maharash-tra & Ors6\n     g. Shri Shahjahur Aminullah Momin V/s State of\n          Maharashtra7\n     h. Mr. Akhtar Kadar Jamadar V/s State of Maha-rashtra & Ors81 Writ Petition No. 10577 of 20132 Writ Petition No. 11394 of 20163 Writ Petition No. 188 of 20144 Writ Petition No. 2674 of 20165 Writ Petition No. 1247 of 20156 Writ Petition No. 8044 of 20137 Writ Petition No. 8687 of 20158 Writ Petition No. 1401 of 201811                   wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc21.                  Per Contra, Mr. Mendadkar learned counsel for\nthe respondent No. 5 supports the order of the scrutiny\ncommittee dated 27th August 2019. He submits that this is\nthe second round of litigation of the petitioner. The peti-\ntioner's case is based on fraud and should not be enter-\ntained. It is submitted that the petitioner has produced\nfake certificate to prove her claim and should be ousted\non that ground alone.22.                  Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner\nhas sought to misguide the officer as well as produced\nfraudulent documents to substantiate her case. Although\nthe father was born in Uttar Pradesh's Godey district she\nproduced the birth certificate of her father showing that\nhe was born in Bhiwandi, Thane Mumbai thereby deceiv-\ning the authority. The learned counsel submits that as per\nRule 3 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified\nTribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward\nClasses and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Is-\nsuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012\n(for short "MSCC Rules) the petitioner ought to have ap-\nplied where her father or grandfather or great grandfather\nresided i.e. in UP and not in Maharashtra. It is submitted\nthat the committee also had to consider as to whether the\nname of the petitioner's father was Abdul Hafiz or Mohd.\nHafiz. The learned counsel submitted that by merely filing\n                                       12                    wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nan affidavit, the Court cannot consider it conclusive evi-\ndence. The learned counsel drew our attention to pages\n364, 191 and 189 and submitted that the statement of\nperson Ubadulla Ameen cannot be accepted in as much\nas, if he was 70 years old on 28 th July 2019 then on 7th\nFebruary 1962 he was just 13 years old and could not\nhave been running a power loom as sought to be sug-\ngested by the certificate at page 189 and could not certify\nthat the Petitioner's father (who would be 12 years old as\nper the Aadhar card age shown) was working with him.23.                  The learned counsel submits that the in order to\navail of Rule 13 (d) of the MSCC Rules, the Petitioner has\nnot proved that she was born in Maharashtra. It is submit-\nted that as on 27th February 2022 the Petitioner's father\nwas on the voters list in Uttar Pradesh. It is submitted that\nthe petitioner has failed to challenge the Vigilance Inquiry\nReport dated 22nd July 2019 or the finding that her parents\nare on the voters list of Pratapgad, Uttar Pradesh. The\nlearned counsel submitted that it was incumbent on the\npetitioner to disclose all true and correct information, in-\ncluding disclosure of adverse entries or material failing\nwhich it was lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw ad-\nverse inference.13                   wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc24.                  The learned counsel relied upon the following\njudgements in support of his contentions:a.         Aanandra Vithoba Adsul V/s State of\n                      Maharashtra & Ors9;\n\n          b.         S. P. Chengalvara Naidu V/s Jagannath &\n                    Ors;10\n\n          c.         Prakash J. Koli V/s State of Maharashtra ;11\n\n          d.         Derry & Ors. Peek;12\n\n          e.         Bir Singh V/s Delhi Jal Board & Ors.;1325.                  In response/rejoinder Dr Warunjikar submitted\nthat the court had to consider whether natural justice was\ndone to the petitioner. He submitted that since the peti-\ntioner was an ordinary resident Rule 13 (d) was required\nto be followed and Rule 3 did not make any distinction and\ncannot be given a restricted meaning and ought to be\nused to find out the truth. It was submitted that the Peti-\ntioner was obliged to prove every aspect beyond reason-\nable doubt and not beyond all doubts.9 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 793\n10 (1994) 1 SCC 1\n11 2008 (2) Mh. L. J 511\n12 [1886-90] All E. R. 1\n13 (2018) 10 SCC 312\n                                        14                    wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nREASONS AND CONCLUSION26.                  We have heard Dr Warunjikar on behalf of the\nPetitioner and Mr. Mendadkar on behalf of the Respon-\ndents at length, perused the papers with their able assis-\ntance and have deliberated on their rival submissions.27.                  This Court by its order dated 12th June 2019 per-\nmitted the petitioner to produce the family tree and ge-\nnealogy which could establish the relationship with the\nperson whose name is in the family register; and that her\ngrandfather has a son by the name of her father; and that\nher grandfather had resided in that village and carried on\nthe traditional occupation; and that her grandfather and\nfather shifted to the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner\nwas also permitted to prove her claim by relying upon not\nonly the document but the material relied upon to support\nthe entry therein. The petitioner was given an opportunity\nto establish and prove her claim independent of the school\nleaving certificate of her father. The respondent no. 2 was\nrequired to investigate and submit a report.28.                  It is evinced from the record that, the pariwar\nregister and the statements recorded by the vigilance offi-\ncer as produced before the respondent no. 2 committee\nthat the petitioner's father and grandfather were from\nPratapgad in UP. Consequently, the petitioner ought to\n                                      15                   wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nhave applied for issuance of caste certificate from the\nplace of ordinary residence i.e. the place of permanent\nresidence of her father or grandfather or great grandfa-\nther under sub rule (2) of Rule 3 of the MSCC Rules. On\nthis ground itself the petitioner was not entitled to the is-\nsuance of the caste certificate from the State of Maharash-\ntra and consequently the benefits and concessions meant\nfor OBC candidates in the State of Maharashtra as held by\nthe Supreme Court in the case of Bir Singh (supra).29.                  Furthermore, the father of the petitioner was\nfully aware that he was born in the State of Uttar Pradesh\non 15th August 1950 and was educated in primary school\nat Gode during the year 1961-62; but despite that, he\nmade a false statement in his affidavit dated 30 th January\n2017 before the JMFC Bhiwandi that he was born in Bhi-\nwandi on 1st January 1945 and obtained an order from the\nJMFC, Bhiwandi which directed Bhiwandi Nizampur City\nMunicipal Corporation to register the date of birth of Abdul\nHafiz Mohd. Salim Ansari based on a fabricated school\nleaving certificate of Nalanda High School, Borivali (East),\nMumbai showing the date of birth as 1 st January 1945, ob-\ntained a birth certificate on 26 th June 2017. This method\nadopted by the petitioner's father clearly evinces mens\nrea. There is no other document evincing that the father of\nthe petitioner or her grandfather are ordinary resident of\nState of Maharashtra. Consequently, in our view, the peti-16                      wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\ntioner would not be entitled to issuance of Caste Certifi-\ncate as per sub rule (3) of Rule 3 of the MSCC Rules which\ndeal with case of migration within the State of Maharash-\ntra. We are bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble\nSupreme Court in the case of Bir Singh (supra) wherein\nit held that a migrant from State of Uttar Pradesh was not\nentitled to any benefits and concessions meant for OBC\ncandidates in the State of Maharashtra.30.                  In so far as the verification of form AR-6 that has\nbeen issued by the Central Excise Department in favour of\nthe Petitioner's father on 25th March 1965 is concerned,\nThe vigilance cell officer was informed that the records\nwere destroyed and even the genuineness of AR-6 could\nnot be verified. It was urged that even otherwise the AR-6\ncould not be considered as the father had claimed to have\nbeen born on 1st January 1945 and had applied for license\nin the year 1965 i.e. when he was 20 years of age. How-\never, the documents now brought on record evince that\nhe was born in the year 1950 and consequently was a mi-\nnor of 15 years when the Power loom license was granted.\nWe find merit in the submission of Mr. Mendadkar that no\nlicense could be granted by any government authority to a\nminor. Per contra, we are unable to agree with the submis-\nsion of Mr. Warunjikar that there was no restriction to the\nage in granting of a power loom license.17                    wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc31.                  The petitioner has not been able to produce any\ndocument dated prior to 13 th October 1967 showing caste\nof any of the blood relatives as "Julah" in the State of Ma-\nharashtra. The Pariwar Register from State of Uttar\nPradesh which shows the word "Julah" is in relation to\nScheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes and not in relation\nto OBC category and that to was prepared only after 1970\ni.e. rewritten in 1992 on the ground that the record had\nbecome obsolete as per the report of the vigilance cell.\nFurthermore, there is no name of the petitioner in the Pari-\nwar Register. The respondent no. 2 is also not satisfied be-\nyond reasonable doubt as to whether Abdul Hafiz is the\nson of Mohd. Salim and has consequently held that the pe-\ntitioner has not proved her case. In our view too, the peti-\ntioner has failed to prove and establish the genealogy tree\nas per the order of this Court on 12th June 2019.32.                  After perusing the impugned Order of the re-\nspondent no. 2 committee, it is abundantly clear that the\nrespondent no. 2 has accepted the report of the vigilance\ncell. It is evident that they have considered every aspect\nof the matter and given their due consideration to all the\ndocuments produced, oral arguments and written submis-\nsions of both the advocates. We find that the respondent\nno.2 committee has considered the entire material on\n                                         18                      wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nrecord and recorded findings based on evidence placed\nbefore it and after considering the same has rightly come\nto the conclusion to invalidate the caste certificate issued\nto the petitioner.               The findings rendered by the respon-\ndent no.2 are not perverse.                  It is well settled that this\nCourt is not to sit in appeal to re-appreciate the findings\nas held by the Supreme Court in case of Kum.Madhuri\nPatil vs Additional Commissioner Tribal Develop-ment14. In our view in view of this mandate, we are not in-\nclined to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by\nthe respondent no. 2 committee.33.                  The petitioner who is an applicant under the\nMSCC Rules is admittedly born after the deemed date i.e.\n13th October 1967 and ought to have applied from the\nplace of permanent residence of her father or grandfather\nwhich would be Pratapgad in U.P. and not from Maharash-\ntra. She being a migrant after the deemed date was not\nentitled to contest elections in Maharashtra. The Supreme\nCourt in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste\nCertificate to Schedule Tribes in the State of Maharashtra\nand ors15 held as under:"It will thus, be seen that so far as the Government\nof India is concerned, since the date of issuance of the\ncommunication dated 22nd March 1977, it has firmly held\n\n14 (1994) 6 SCC 641\n15 (1994) 5 SCC 244\n                                     19                  wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nthe view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person\nwho migrates from the State of his origin to another State\nin search of employment or for educational purposes or\nthe like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to the\nScheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to which he\nmigrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as such in the\nlatter State".34.                  It would be appropriate to cite the case of\nAanandra Vithoba Adsul (supra) which observed that\n"A wrong caste validity certificate granted in favour of the\nparty does not belong to that caste may deprive a gen-\nuine and deserving person belonging to such reserve cat-\negory of the caste and all the benefits prescribed in the\nConstitution of India." The Petitioner has clearly tried and\nalmost succeeded in depriving another genuine candidate\nto avail the benefits of the caste in the elections.35.                  We find no merit in the submission of Mr.\nWarunjikar, that the respondent no.2 ought to have given\nan opportunity to the petitioner for explaining the name of\nher parents in the voters list in Pratapgad in UP. This Court\nhad granted sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to\nprove her case and it is apparent that the petitioner has\nfailed to come to this Court with clean hands. We see no\n                                        20                     wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nreason to give any further latitude to the petitioner in\nthese circumstances.36.                    We shall now deal with the judgments relied\nupon by the Petitioner in support of her contentions.37.                  Apropos the judgment of this Court, in case of\nSmt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed (supra), and\nmore particularly paragraph 5 relied upon by the peti-\ntioner's counsel, we are not in variance thereto. In our\nview, the facts, in this case, are that the petitioner's father\nis from Pratapgad in U. P. and not a migrant within the\nState of Maharashtra as was the case in the judgement re-\nlied upon hence is distinguishable and does not support\nthe petitioner. Consequently, we cannot accept the\nlearned counsel's submission that it was necessary for the\nVigilance cell to make an enquiry in terms of Rule 13 sub-\nrule 1, clause (d) of the MSCC Rules.38.                  Apropos the decision of this Court, in the case of\nJamadar Mehaboob Ghudubai (supra), which relies on\nthe decision of Smt. Bismilla Mohammedsab Sayyed\n(supra) in our view would not assist the petitioner's case\nas the Scrutiny Committee had discarded the Vigilance\nCell report on the ground that the same was not binding\n                                        21                    wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\non the Scrutiny Committee. In the present case, the Scru-\ntiny Committee has considered the report of the Vigilance\nCell that is against the petitioner and which has not been\nchallenged by the petitioner.39.                  Apropos the decision of this Court, relied upon\nby the petitioner in the case of Ansar Abdul Rashid\nManchekar (supra), the order of the Scrutiny Committee\nwas set aside since they had not referred to the material\nproduced by the petitioner. The present case is distin-\nguishable since the petitioner has not challenged the re-\nport of the vigilance cell which was considered along with\nthe material produced by the petitioner.40.                  Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nKumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal (supra) decided by\nthis Court, it was held that the Scrutiny committee is\nbound to consider the vigilance cell's report and that there\nwas no reason to disbelieve the same if it's in favour of\nthe petitioner. This case too does not assist the petitioner\nas in her case the Scrutiny Committee has considered the\nvigilance cell report which is against the petitioner and not\nchallenged by her.22                    wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc41.                  Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nMrs. Firdos Ayyub Koti (supra) where this Court held\nthat the Scrutiny Committee had wrongly disagreed with\nthe report of the Vigilance Cell and there was no contra-\ndictory material before the Scrutiny Committee to disre-\ngard the material placed on record which is distinguish-\nable in the present case in as much as the Scrutiny Com-\nmittee has considered the report of the Vigilance Cell and\nall the material before it. Hence this judgement would not\nassist the petitioners.42.                  Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nShri Imram A. Ajij Shaikh V/s State of Maharashtra\n& Ors. (supra) wherein it was held that once the report is\nin favour of the candidate found to be genuine and true,\nno further action needs to be taken except where the re-\nport or the particulars given are procured or found to be\nfalse or fraudulently obtained or serious doubts are raised.\nIn our view this judgment is distinguishable in as much as\nthe material produced before the Scrutiny Committee,\nwere fraudulent documents and raised serious doubts.43.                  Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nShri Shahjahur Aminullah Momin (Supra) wherein the\nScrutiny Committee report was set aside for want of rea-\nsons to disagree with the Vigilance Cell report. This judge-\nment is distinguishable in as much as the material pro-23                    wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc\n\nduced before the Scrutiny Committee, were fraudulent\ndocuments and raised serious doubts and will not assist\nthe petitioner.44.                  Apropos the decision of this Court in the case of\nMr. Akhtar Kadar Jamadar (supra) wherein the Scrutiny\nCommittee report was set aside as it had not applied the\naffinity test nor considered the vigilance cell report, is dis-\ntinguishable from the present case where the Scrutiny\nCommittee has considered the report of the Vigilance Cell\nand all the material before it. Hence this judgement would\nnot assist the petitioners.45.                  In our view, entertaining a petitioner who has\nknowingly produced fabricated and fraudulent documents\nto substantiate a false claim cannot be tolerated at any\nstage. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's\ncase is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the\nCourt. The petitioner is guilty of playing fraud on the Court\nas well as on the opposite party. In our view, we find no in-\nfirmity to set aside the order dated 27 th August 2019\npassed by respondent no. 2. The Petition is dismissed with\ncosts of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the respondent no.1.\nRule is discharged. Parties to act on the authenticated\ncopy of this order.24                  wp-158.21\nNaziya Banu A H Ansari (j).doc46. In view of disposal of the writ petition, the pending\nInterim Application does not survive and the same is\naccordingly disposed off.[KAMAL KHATA, J.]                    [R.D. DHANUKA, J.]