Judgment Sunil P. Deshmukh, J. 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent, finally. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court against order dated 28.12.2012 passed by respondent no.2Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee 2, invalidating his claim to caste as "Momin" Other Backward Class (for short 'OBC'). 3. Petitioner has contested general election of village Panchayat, Vihamandava, Tq. Paithan on a seat reserved for 'Other Backward Class' and was elected. 4. The Collector, Aurangabad had forwarded the certificate of caste "Momin" claimed by the petitioner to respondent no. 2 Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny, verification and decision. 5. The petitioner's claim that he belongs to the caste "Momin"(OBC) has been resisted by respondent no. 6, who appears to have contested the election. According to respondent no. 6, petitioner's claim as to his status is fraudulent and that he is "Muslim" from open category. 6. It is seen that the petitioner had applied and the competent Authority Deputy Collector (General Administration), Aurangabad, had issued Caste Certificate of "Momin"(OBC) on 21.06.2010. 7. The Certificate has been issued to petitioner certifying his caste claim as "Momin" (OBC) was subjected to verification by respondent no. 2 which has invalidated the claim of petitioner under the impugned decision. 8. There is no dispute about religion of petitioner being 'Muslim'. 9. Record shows that in support of the petitioner's claim, to be belonging to "Momin" (OBC), the petitioner had relied on documents and he relies on those even now. 10. The documents which the petitioner had placed on record before the Scrutiny Committee are:- (a) The school record of the petitioner's admission in the Primary School, where his caste is shown as Muslim. (b) Certificate issued by All India Muslim OBC Organization, State of Maharashtra on 27.04.2010 Certificate by their District Organization. (c) Caste Certificates issued by Talathi, Gram Sevak of Vihamandawa. (d) 'Nikahnamas' of his father and uncle showing their the caste as "Momin" issued in 1949 and 1953. (e) Khasra patrak of his grand father Gafoor Rajubahi of 195454. (f) 'Trimasik' the quarterly index of the Office of Sub Registrar of Parbhani, showing summary of transactions of sales and other transfers (related to Annexure C) of 1349 Fasli showing that his grand father Gafoor Rajubhai was referred to therein whose caste is shown as "Momin". 11. (e) Khasra patrak of his grand father Gafoor Rajubahi of 195454. (f) 'Trimasik' the quarterly index of the Office of Sub Registrar of Parbhani, showing summary of transactions of sales and other transfers (related to Annexure C) of 1349 Fasli showing that his grand father Gafoor Rajubhai was referred to therein whose caste is shown as "Momin". 11. The petitioner submits that a vigilance enquiry was conducted, which according to the petitioner, shows social status of petitioner as "Momin". Upon request of petitioner the Committee had directed a second vigilance inquiry, in which Vigilance Officer had submitted report on 20.12.2012. 12. During course of scrutiny and verification, the Committee had issued witness summons to the Collector, Parbhani and asked him to produce original record of the document referred to in the index of 1938 (1349 Fasli). Witness summons was also issued to Tahsildar, Paithan asking him to remain present along with original record of Khasra Pahani Patrak pertaining to 19531954. 13. The petitioner has vehemently emphasized that:- (a) Two documents of agricultural Revenue record are old and, as such, have better evidenciary value in the process of determination of his status as "Momin". (b) The petitioner submits that Vigilance Cell has verified his family's trade, tradition, customs and occupation and has supported petitioner's caste claim. (c) That affinity has not been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. Old record regarding school education in respect of ancestors as evidence of entry in record regarding caste of ancestors is not available since they were uneducated. (d) The petitioner, backward class communities are identified by their occupation. (e) Occupation of forefathers of petitioner was that of "Weaver". They were preparing cloths from raw cotton. (f) The social status is to be determined from trades, traditions, customs and occupation/ profession etc. 14. On perusal of decision rendered by the Committee respondent no. 2 herein, it appears that it has taken stock of the entire evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner. We also note that fresh vigilance Report was made available upon request of the petitioner. 15. We quite see that reasons, for which the Committee has not acceded to the request of validation of caste claim of the petitioner, are not liable to be faulted with. The Committee has observed that:- (a) The revenue record of which support is sought by the petitioner as evidence of his caste does not really support him. 15. We quite see that reasons, for which the Committee has not acceded to the request of validation of caste claim of the petitioner, are not liable to be faulted with. The Committee has observed that:- (a) The revenue record of which support is sought by the petitioner as evidence of his caste does not really support him. (b) Not only there is discrepancy with reference to survey number of the transaction in the sale deed and the one in the index of quarterly transaction (Trimasik., but also there is no reference to the name of petitioners grand father. (c) That "Trimasik Purchase Report Register" refers to survey no. 5 whereas sale deed is in relation to land survey no. 50. (d) There is discrepancy in the names of father and uncle of the petitioner referred to in Nikahnamas, based on statement on behalf of the petitioner. (e) Other documents indicating the caste, particularly the khasra patrak, is not considered to be a reliable evidence. 16. We have also perused the Vigilance Cell Reports and that the reports do not anywhere even indicate evidence of facts proving affinity of petitioner to caste "Momin" claimed by him. 17. In such a scenario, the decision rendered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee appears to be based on cogent reasons which cannot be faulted with. We therefore, deem it appropriate not to interfere with the same. The petition, thus stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.