Judgment A.M. Khanwilkar, J. 1) Heard counsel for the parties. 2) The argument of the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to Sonar community, in our opinion, has been rightly negatived by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on the finding that the petitioner was not able to establish the fact that he belonged to Sonar caste. On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the petitioner, at best, indicated that he belonged to Daivadnya Brahmin caste. In the context of that finding, the argument proceeds that Daivadnya Brahmin and Sonar is synonym; and for which reason, the caste certificate of the petitioner ought to have been validated. This argument cannot be entertained considering the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to place any notification issued by the Competent Authority specifying that Daivadnya Brahmin and Sonar castes are synonyms. In the absence of such notification, it is not open to the Court to assume that these two are synonymous. This position is well established and no more res integra. 3) The counsel for the petitioner, relying on the observations made by the Vigilance Cell submits that the observation made therein that “Sonar” and “Daivadnya Brahmin” are synonyms, was binding on the Committee and ought to be the basis to treat the petitioner as belonging to other backward class. Even this argument does not commend to us. The Vigilance Cell, in the first place, could not have given such opinion. In any case, that opinion cannot bind on the Committee. The Committee has rightly discarded the said opinion. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the decision of the Committee. 4) The counsel for the petitioner would then contend that the petitioner's two sons have been given validity certificates that they belong to other backward community, even though they are Daivadnya Brahmin community. It is for the Committee to consider whether to initiate any action to cancel the validity certificates so granted to the sons of the petitioner. That issue will have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. It is for the Committee to consider whether to initiate any action to cancel the validity certificates so granted to the sons of the petitioner. That issue will have to be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law. 5) The counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Darshana Subhash vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Writ Petition No. 1791 of 2004, wherein, although, the Court found that the petitioner therein belonged to caste “Hindu Daivadnya Brahmin and/or Brahmin”, proceeded to hold that he should be treated as “Sonar Caste”. Exposition in this decision cannot be treated as correct statement of law and more so in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade (2012) 1 SCC 566 , which answers the issue. The writ petition is dismissed.