HCBM070098332026_1_2026-10-19

3-WPST-5566-2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 5566 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1368 OF 2026 Vijaykumar alias Vijaysingh Vasantrao Desai Age: 48 years; Occu: Agriculture;

R/o: Plot No. 5, Jyotirling

Colony, Ring road,

Phulewadi-Bondrenagar,

Tq. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur ...Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Social Justice and Special Assistance Department 2. The District Collector Kolhapur 3. The Sub-Divisional Oicer 3 Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur 4. The Municipal Commissioner Kolhapur Municipal Corporation, Main Building, Shivaji Chowk, C-Ward, Post Box No. 33, Kolhapur 5. The District Caste Certiicates Scrutiny Committee, Kolhapur Through its Member Secretary, Gaikwad RD 1 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc Baba Saheb Ambedkar Samajik Nyay Bhavan, Vicharemaal, Kolhapur 6. Nand Kumar Pise Age: Major; Occu:

A/p Near Diana Castle, 258/34,

Bhosale Sangulkar Nagar,

Ring road, Kolhapur ...Respondents

——————

Mr. R. K. Mendadkar with Mr. Ashish A. Chavan, Mr. D. L. Gote, i/b. Mr. Shrishail Sakhare, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 & 5-State.

Mr. Abhijit M. Adagule, for the Respondent No.4-Corporation.

Shrikrishna R. Ganbavale with Mr. Shantanu Patil & Mr. Ashirwad Kolekar, for the Respondent No.6.

——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &

Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.

Reserved on : October 07, 2026.

Pronounced on: October 19, 2026

JUDGMENT : (Per Neeraj P. Dhote, J.)

1. By consent of both the sides heard inally at the admission stage.

2. Impugned in this petition is the order dated 25 th June 2016 passed by the Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee, invalidat ing the Petitioner's claim as belonging to 'Kunbi’ - Other Backward Class (OBC).

The Petitioner applied for the caste certiicate as belonging to the 'Kunbi' to the competent authority. The caste certiicate was accordingly issued to the Petitioner as belonging to 'Kunbi' . The Petitioner contested the elections dated 15 th January 2026 to the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation from the ward reserved for O BC. The Petitioner was declared elected from Ward No. 9A. The Re spondent Gaikwad RD 2 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc No.6 got defeated in the said elections against the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 6 raised the objection to the caste claim of the Petitioner. The Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee initiated the proceedings for veriication of the caste claim of the Petitioner and referred the matter to the Vigilance Cell for necessary inquiry. The Vigilance Cell conducted the inquiry and submitted its report. The Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee issued notice to the Pe titioner with the copy of the vigilance report, to which the Petition er iled his reply along with the supporting documents. The Responden t No.5 - Scrutiny Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner by the impugned order.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner relied on the pre-Constitution era document of A nusaya, who was the paternal aunt of the Petitioner's father showing her caste as 'Kunbi'. The genealogy was submitted to the Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee. The Vigilance Cell during inquiry found the said p re- Constitution era document as genuine. During the home inqu iry, the persons with whom the inquiry was made stated that, the Petition er belonged to ‘Kunbi’ caste. The statements of the persons recorded during the vigilance inquiry are consistent. Without any basis, t he Respondent No. 6 - Complainant, disputed the relation between the Petitioner and Anusaya. The Petitioner iled his detailed rep ly to the Gaikwad RD 3 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc notice issued by the Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee. Af ter hearing, the case was closed and thereafter some documents were collected by the Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee an d the impugned order was passed. The document in the name of Kisna, showing the caste as Maratha/Marathi, was not related to the Petitioner. On the basis of the entry of Kisna, which was also o f the pre- Constitution era, the Petitioner's claim came to be invalidated. The school leaving certiicate in the name of Dinkar Atmaram Desai showed that, many relevant columns were left blank and therefore t he caste mentioned therein as ‘Maratha’ will not be suicient to inval idate the Petitioner's claim. The Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee discarded the Vigilance Cell report without any reasons. He su bmitted that, considering the documents on record, the impugned order be set aside and the petition be allowed.

4. It is submitted by learned AGP and learned counsel for Respondent No. 6-Complainant, that the pre-Constitution era document of Dinkar, who was related to the Petitioner from father's sid e, showed the caste as Maratha. The documents showing the caste as Kunbi were of recent period. They submitted that, the Respondent N o.5 - Scrutiny Committee has properly passed the impugned order on the basis o f the documents on record and no interference was called for, and the petition be dismissed.

Gaikwad RD 4 of 13

3-WPST-5566-2026.doc

5. We had called the record of the Petitioner's caste claim from Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee. We perused the same.

6. The Petitioner's claim is for ‘Kunbi’ caste, which comes in O BC category. The Petitioner submitted the aidavit in Form-3 (Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XVIII Rule 4) showing the following genealogy:

oa’kkoG

vkRek ckcq nslkbZ ¼v-iatksck½

fnudj vkRekjke nslkbZ&¼v-vktksck½ vuql;k vkRekjke nslkbZ&¼ v-vk-vkRrh½ olar fnudj nslkbZ ¼v&oMhy½ fot;flag olarjko nslkbZ&¼vtZnkj½ 7. The Petitioner primarily based his claim on the pre-Constitution era document in the name of Anusaya, which is the birth entry dated 16th August 1921 in the revenue record. The said entry was in the revenue record of the Tahsildar, Karveer, and the extract in Village Form No. 14 was issued to that efect. The certiied copy of th e same is on record at page No. 365. The said entry is the birth entry of the girl child Anusaya to Atma Babu Desai and the caste is mentioned as 'Kun bi'. The record shows that, the Vigilance Cell inquired about the sai d entry with the Tahsil oice, Karveer, and got the photocopy of the same. The Vigilance Cell records in its report that, there was no in terpolation of Gaikwad RD 5 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc any nature in the said entry. The vigilance report shows that, the said entry was genuine.

8. The Vigilance Cell report shows that, during the home inqu iry, they recorded the statements of ive (5) persons. Out of them, three (3)

were not related to the Petitioner, two (2) were related to the Petitioner, and one (1) was Respondent No. 6, complainant. T he statements of the three (3) witnesses, who were not related to the Petitioner, shows that, they supported the Petitioner's cl aim as belonging to Kunbi caste. Their statements show that, they knew the forefathers of the Petitioner. The statement of the other two witnesses, who were related to the Petitioner, also supports the Pet itioner's claim.

It becomes clear from the Vigilance Cell report that, exc ept the statement of Respondent No. 6 – Complainant, nothing adver se to the caste claim of the Petitioner has been recorded.

9. It appears that, the Respondent No. 6 – Complainant had submitted the birth entry showing that, a son Kisna was born t o Atma Babu Desai on 2 nd September 1919, wherein the caste is mentioned as ‘Marathi’. The certiied copy of the said entry of 2 nd September 1919 in the name of Kisna is at page No. 219. It shows that, son Kisna was born to Atma Babu Desai on the said date and the caste is mentione d as 'Marathi'. There cannot be any dispute that ‘Marathi’ is a langu age widely used in the State of Maharashtra and not a caste. It would be too Gaikwad RD 6 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc technical and also impermissible to presume that ‘Marathi’ means ‘Maratha’. Therefore, the said entry by itself will not pre vail over the entry dated 16 th August 1921 of Anusaya wherein the caste is mentioned as 'Kunbi'. Except bare contention, nothing co ncrete is brought on record by the Respondent No. 6 - Complainant to support his contention that Kisna was related to the Petitioner from the paternal side. It is worth to note that, the Vigilance Cell report is silent in respect of Kisna.

10. The Page No. 367 of the record shows that, the Respondent No.5 - Scrutiny Committee, by communication dated 19 th June 2023 addressed to the Headmaster, Vidya Mandir, Kasba Beed, Taluka Karveer, Dist rict Kolhapur, sought the information in respect of Dinkar Atmaram Desai to verify the school leaving certiicate of Dinkar Atmaram Desai su bmitted by the Petitioner. At Page No.369 of the record, is the information supplied by the Headmaster of the said Vidya Mandir School t hat, in the school register of the year 1915-27, the name of Dinkar Atmaram Desai was mentioned in Register No. 5, wherein his caste is shown as ‘Maratha’ and the date of birth is mentioned as 1 st April 1919. The information in respect of the admission in the school is kept blank. If we s ee the dates of birth of Krishna and Dinkar, the diference is of ive (5) months and two (2) days. Both of them are shown as the sons of Atmaram. We ind substance in the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that, it Gaikwad RD 7 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc is impossible that after the birth of Dinkar in April 1919, K isna was born on 2nd September 1919 to wife of Atmaram.

11. The Respondent No.6-Complainant further relied on the birth entry dated 17 th March 1924 showing that, a son Mahadev was born to Atma Babu Desai. The certiied copy of the said entry is at P age No.

221. The said entry shows that, the caste mentioned therei n is 'Marathi'. Undisputedly, the entry of 1924 is later than t he entry of the year 1921 of Anusaya. Further, the record shows that, t he Respondent No.6 - Complainant supplied the certiied copies of the en tries dated 20th June 1922 showing that son-Rajaram was born to Dattu Babu Desai and birth entry dated 29th September 1925 in respect of birth of Bapu to Dattu Babu Desai. The certiied copies of the said birth entr ies are at page 223 and 225. In both the said entries, the caste is me ntioned as 'Marathi', which, as observed above, is the language and not the caste.

12. The record shows that both the sides argued the matter be fore the Respondent No.5 – Scrutiny Committee on 16 th June 2026 and the ile was closed for order. The record shows that the Resp ondent No.5 – Scrutiny Committee, thereafter, addressed a letter dated 19th June 2026 written to the Headmaster of Vidya Mandir, Kasba Beed, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur and sought the opinion in respect of Di nkar Atmaram Desai and, thereafter, the information was provided by the H eadmaster of the said school, which is at page No.369 of the record. The same Gaikwad RD 8 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc shows that, the caste of Dinkar was mentioned as ‘Maratha’ in the school record. However, the information at Page No.369 did not give the details as to when Dinkar was admitted to the said school. At Page No.269 of the record, there is the certiied xerox copy of the school leaving certiicate issued by the Headmaster, Vidya Mandir, Kasba Beed, Taluka Karveer, showing the name of the student as ‘Dinkar At maram Desai’, caste as ‘Maratha’ and the date of birth as 1 st April 1919.

However, the columns from Nos.7 to 13 in respect of the name of previous school, the date of admission to the school, academic performance, the behavior in the school, the date of le aving the school, studying in which class and reason for leaving the school ar e kept blank.

The remarks at Sr. No. 14 shows that, as the register was soiled , only one part of information was available. This being so, the said ‘M aratha’ entry will not be suicient to discard the Petitioner's claim in absence of any material to show as to when the said information was entered in the school record. The possibility of entering the said informatio n of ‘Dinkar’ in the school record is most likely after 16 th August, 1921, which is the birth entry of Anusaya, as the admission in the school can be made after certain age. Had there been material on record to show that, the caste entry of Dinkar as ‘Maratha’ in the school record was prior to the said birth entrty of Anusaya, it would have had more probative value.

13. The other documents showing the caste as ‘Maratha’ in the school Gaikwad RD 9 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc leaving certiicate of Vasant Dinkar Desai, who is the father of Petitioner and of the Petitioner shows that the said entry was subsequent to the birth entry of Anusaya. The Petitioner gave detailed response to the show cause notice issued by the Scrutiny C ommittee.

The Petitioner had also submitted the aidavit of Pandurang Dinkar Desai, which is at Page No.157 to 159 of the record, showing t he following genealogy :

ckcw

vkRekjke cGoar nRrw

eatqGk

fnudj vuql;k egknso

lkfo=hckbZ

olarjko vkuanjko fganqjko ikaMqjax fuo`Rrh ‘kkjnk oS’kkyh fot;flag uhydey 14. There is the aidavit by one Siddhappa alias Siddhu Annappa Helvi stating that, his hereditary work was to maintain t he genealogies of the families by visiting the villages. It states t hat they had the information/genealogy in respect of the Desai family residing at Kasba Beed, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur. To the aidavit, the Gaikwad RD 10 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc following genealogy is submitted under the signature of the said Aiant:

T;ksrhck

vkdsth

nRrksck

ckGkth nkSyw

jkm egknso

nknksck

dsjck

ckcw

vkRekjke cGoar nRrw

fnudj vuql;k egknso ek#rh ljtsjko ij’kjke dsjck mQZ jktkjke ck thjko gkSlkckbZ olar vkuan fganwjko ikaMwjax fuo`Rrh dey f’kokth vatuk izdk’k iaMhr foB~By mn; ‘kjn ckcw dey HkkÅlkc lqjs’k panzdkar nRrw oS’kkyh fot; fuydey 15. The above two genealogies are not challenged. They suppo rt the Petitioner’s case. The above discussion shows that, it is established that the oldest entry is that of Anusaya, wherein the caste is men tioned as ‘Kunbi’. It is nowhere disputed either by the Respondent No. 5 - Scrutiny Committee or the Respondent No. 6 – Complainant that, Anusay a was not related to the Petitioner from his father's side. The Committee observed that, there was only one (1) entry showing the cast e as ‘Kunbi’ and there were nine (9) documents, wherein the caste was mentioned Gaikwad RD 11 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc as ‘Maratha’/’Marathi’/’Marathe’ and the oldest entry was showing t he caste as ‘Maratha’/’Marathi’. We have dealt with the said entries of 1919, 1922 and 1924. The oldest relevant and acceptable caste entry is that of Anusaya and it will have more probative value. Th e Respondent No.5 – Scrutiny Committee failed to properly evaluate the d ocuments on record. Thus, the order impugned is liable to be qu ashed and set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

I) The Interim Application (IA) for amendment in respect of consequential order of disqualiication is granted.

Amendment to be carried out forthwith. Re-veriication is dispensed with. The Interim Application stands disposed of.

ii) The Writ Petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 25 th June 2026 passed by the Respondent No.5 – Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the Petition is quashed and set aside.

iii) The Respondent No.5 – Scrutiny Committee shall issue the caste validity certiicate to the Petitioner as belonging to ‘Kunbi’ – OBC within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

iv) The order dated 3 rd August 2026 passed by the Respondent No.4-Commissioner disqualifying the Petitioner from Gaikwad RD 12 of 13 3-WPST-5566-2026.doc membership of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation is quashed and set aside.

v) The record and proceedings be handed over to the l earned AGP.

vi) The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Gaikwad RD 13 of 13 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:

2026.10.19

19:54:30

+0530