Jitendra Jain, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally.

2. This petition is filed for quashing of order dated 17th June 2026 passed by respondent no.2-committee, whereby the application made by the petitioner for validating his caste certificate as “Rajput, Bhamta” caste came to be rejected and cancelled.

3. The petitioner was elected as a corporator in the Municipal Elections in 2025 on seat reserved for the candidate belonging to the backward class. The petitioner filed application of validating caste certificate with respondent no.2 stating that he belongs to “Rajput Bhamta” caste based on a certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Beed dated 11th December 2007 in his favour. In support of his claim, in addition to various documents, he also filed a validity certificate of one Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade. The petitioner also filed an affidavit certifying that what is stated in his application is true and correct.

4. Respondent no.2 issued various show cause notices calling upon the petitioner to furnish pre 1961 documents in support of his claim and to show cause as to why his request for validation of the caste certificate should not be rejected. The show cause notices also brought to the notice of the petitioner various contra entries and further called upon petitioner to show cause as to why in the absence of any documentary proof, his caste certificate should not be rejected. The petitioner filed his only reply on 3rd June 2026 in which he relied upon documents post - 1961 of his father and statement of villager. The petitioner also relied upon caste certificate issued to Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade, whom he claims to be his relative.

5. Respondent no.2 by impugned order dated 17th June 2026 rejected the claim of the petitioner and cancelled the caste certificate as invalid.

6. It is on the above backdrop that the present petition came to be filed challenging the aforesaid rejection.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the findings of respondent no.2 in the impugned order which states that inspite of various opportunities no documentary evidence was filed in support of the claim that the petitioner belongs to “Rajput Bhamta” caste and submitted that no adequate opportunity was given. Furthermore, the impugned order states that the certificate relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade is based on a family tree which is different than the family tree submitted by the petitioner and the relationship was not proved. The petitioner submits that respondent no.2-Committee never gave him opportunity to explain the said issue and, therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is bad in law, and in any case, the matter should be remanded back for adjudication of the claim afresh.

8. The learned AGP produced original records of the petitioner and also of Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade. He brought to the notice of the Court, the family tree filed by the petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade and submitted that Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade is no way related to the petitioner. He submitted that no purpose would be served in remanding the matter, when the family tree submitted by the petitioner is found to be incorrect and false. The learned AGP also pointed out various contra entries in support of his submission. The learned AGP, therefore, prayed for dismissal of petition.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP.

10. At the outset, the family tree submitted by the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:-

                   

11. The family tree of Ranjit is as under:-

                   

12. On perusal of the above two family trees, it is apparent on the face that the petitioner and Ranjit are not related to each other. As per the family tree filed by Mr. Ranjit, Bhagwansingh is the son of Nandram, whereas the family tree filed by the petitioner states that Bhagwansingh is son of Jaysingh Chungade. The family tree filed by Mr. Ranjit shows Kishansingh as son of Shivlalsingh, but in the family tree filed by petitioner, there is no such branch. In the family tree filed by Mr. Ranjit there are four children of Swaroopsingh, whereas in the family tree filed by petitioner, Mr. Ranjit is shown as only son of Swaroopsingh. In the family tree filed by Mr. Ranjit, Asaramsingh, Swaroopsingh, Ishwarsingh, Ramesh and Rambha are shown as children of Bhagwansingh, whereas same does not appear in the family tree filed by the petitioner. There are various other inconsistencies between the two family trees. The petitioner relied upon the certificate issued in the case of Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade and claimed him to be his blood relative in support of his caste validation claim.

13. From the above analysis, it is clear that Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade is nowhere related to the petitioner. Therefore, reliance placed on the caste certificate issued in favour of Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade is misconceived. The petitioner could not explain the difference between the two family trees and, therefore, this Court is of the view that no purpose would be served in remanding the matter. The petitioner has falsely claimed Mr. Ranjit Swaroopsingh Chungade as his cousin when it was not so as observed by us above based on the two family trees. Therefore, on this ground itself, petition deserves to be dismissed.

14. Respondent No.2 gave several opportunities to the petitioner to prove his claim and also put forth to him their prima-facie conclusion on all the documents relied upon by the petitioner and obtained from the vigilance cell. The notices dated 28.02.2025, 29.01.2026, 19.03.2026, 25.03.2026, 09.04.2026, 24.04.2026, 29.05.2026 and 05.06.2026 were issued to the petitioner but the petitioner only filed sketchy reply on 03.06.2026. In our view and on a perusal of the notices, the petitioner was given more than sufficient and adequate opportunity to prove his claim but the petitioner miserably failed to discharge the onus cast upon him. Therefore, submission that no adequate opportunity was given also cannot be accepted.

15. The petitioner has filed statement of a villager in support of his claim that he belongs to “Rajput Bhamta”caste. In our view, no credence can be given to such a statement of a villager without any documents in support thereof.

16. It is important to note that in the impugned order, the father of the petitioner is shown as “Hindu Rajput” caste as per document of 4th July 1983 and his cousin is shown as “Rajput” based on a document of 18th June 1979. These being the old documents, it clearly shows that the claim of the petitioner on the basis of “Rajput Bhamta” caste is false and misconceived. No document of pre 1961 was produced by the petitioner. The document filed with regard to his father and cousin were found to be incorrect by the vigilance cell and same was confronted to by respondent no.2 which the petitioner has not been able to rebut.

17. The impugned order has considered all the materials on record and has given detailed reasons for rejecting the validation request of the petitioner and, therefore, no infirmity can be attributed in cancelling the caste certificate issued in 2007.

18. The learned AGP is justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Ketaki d/o Bhumayya Muttepod vs. State of Maharashtra(Writ Petition No.11751 of 2025 dated 20.07.2026), where a claim made on false records and on contra entries has been held to be illegal and void. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to distinguish the said judgment. In our view, the ratio of this judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Court to which one of us (Shri Kishore C. Sant, J) is a party squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

19. In view of above, petition is dismissed.

20. Rule stands discharged.

21. Pending civil applications if any, also stands disposed off.