Bombay High Court
Paresh Vikram Deoraj And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 6 February, 2024
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2024:BHC-AUG:2764-DB
{1}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8581 OF 2021
1. Paresh s/o. Vikram Deoraj,
Age 35 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. 4, Chaitanyanagar,
near Girls High School,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.
2. Mayur s/o. Vikram Deoraj,
Age 37 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. 4, Chaitanyanagar,
near Girls High School,
Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.
.. PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralalya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar
through its Member Secretary.
.. RESPONDENTS.
Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. S.K. Shirse, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
& S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 18th JANUARY, 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON : 6th FEBRUARY, 2024.
{2}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
Judgment (per S. G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) :-
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with the consent of learned advocate appearing for the parties.
2. The petitioners have approached this court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, thereby impugning the notice dated 8 th June,
2021 issued by the respondent No.2 Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nandurbar, calling upon them to show cause as to why
validity certificates issued in their favour should not be reviewed and
cancelled. Since, during pendency of present writ petition committee
passed further order dated 4.10.2021, thereby cancelled the caste validity
certificates issued in favour of the petitioners and further directed them
to surrender originals within a period of 8 days, by way of amendment,
the petitioners have assailed said order.
3. Mr. S.R. Barlinge, learned advocate for the petitioners would
submit that the petitioners belong to Tokre Koli Scheduled Tribe. They
were conferred with the Validity Certificates to that effect by the
Scheduled Tribes Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik in the year 2001
and 2005, respectively. The caste validity was granted by the Scrutiny
Committee after following due process of law based on Vigilance Cell
Inquiry Report. He would submit that the petitioners had relied upon the
School Admission Record of their father dated 1st June, 1951, wherein,
his caste has been entered as "Tokre Koli".
4. He would further submit that recently, Validity Certificates
issued in favour of the petitioners were relied upon by Usha Prakash Koli,
in support of her caste claim pending verification. During process of her
{3}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
caste claim, Vigilance Cell Report dated 28.2.2014 was received to
Committee. Taking base of certain adverse remarks therein, Scrutiny
Committee issued notices to the petitioners with an intention defeat caste
claim of petitioner's brother, namely Yash Vikram Deoraj. Mr. Barlinge
would further submit that the contents of show-cause-notice served to
petitioners nowhere records that the petitioners have either fraudulently
obtained caste validity or they misrepresented Committee. Lastly, he
would submit that even otherwise, the statutory scheme under the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes,
Vimukta Jatis, Nomadic Tribes, other Backward Classes and Special
Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste
Certificate) Act, 2000, do not confer powers of review upon the Scrutiny
Committee. This Court as well as the Supreme Court of India in catena
of judgments reiterated the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, the show
cause notice to re-open the concluded claim and consequential order of
cancellation of validity certificate by committee is without jurisdiction. In
support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments in following
cases :-
(i) Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra .
2023 DGLS (Bom.)5029.
(ii) Anil s/o. Shivram Bandawar vs. The District Caste Certificate
Verification Committee, Gadchiroli and another (W.P. No. 8107
of 2019) dated 26.7.2021.
(iii) J. Chitra Vs. District Collector and Chairman State Level
Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and others reported in
(2021) 9 SCC 811
{4}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
4. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Shirse, learned AGP appearing for the
respondents vehemently opposes the petition. He would submit that
fraud and justice can not go together. In the present case, during
scrutiny of the caste claim of Usha Prakash Koli, the Vigilance Report
dated 28.2.2014 has been received by the Committee. Based on the
remarks in the Vigilance Report, the files pertaining to the caste validity
granted in favour of the petitioners were called and upon consideration
of the material relied by the petitioners it was revealed that a false
statement regarding blood relationship with validity holders was made
and contra entries, were suppressed. He would submit that the
petitioners had relied upon the caste validity in favour of Mr. Devendra
Sahebrao Deoraj while pursuing their claim. However, as per the report
of the Vigilance Cell, inconsistent material is found in respect of such
relationship. He would therefore submit that the Committee had rightly
issued show cause notice dated 8.6.2021 indicating number of reasons.
and solicited reply of the petitioners. However, petitioners failed to
explain adverse remarks, consequently Committee recalled their Validity
Certificates. He would submit the Committee is within its powers to issue
such show cause notice and call upon the petitioners to explain the
circumstances so also cancel validity granted earlier, when fraudulent
means were adopted while obtaining such validity.
5. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of
the respective parties and perused the documents annexed alongwith the
petition. During the course of hearing, the original files in respect of the
petitioners were also placed before us. Apparently, on 8.6.2021
impugned show cause notice appears to have been issued. The gamut of
show cause notice is as under :-
{5}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
i) Petitioner No. 1 obtained validity based on the validity
certificate granted to his real brother i.e. Petitioner No.2 Mayur
Vikram Deoraj.
ii) Petitioner No.2 Mayur suppressed the contra evidence and
also falsely projected blood relationship with unconcerned persons.
iii) During the scrutiny of the caste claim of petitioner's cousin
aunt, namely, Usha Kalu Deoraj, the contra entries right from 1922
to 1966 indicating caste of blood relatives as "Koli" "Suryawanshi
Koli" has been noticed.
iv) Petitioner No.2 Mayur Vikram Deoraj relied upon the validity
granted to Devendra Sahebrao Deoraj. However, no evidence
depicting his relationship with Devendra Sahebrao Deoraj has been
produced.
Pertinently, contents of the show cause notice nowhere
depict that the petitioners had adopted fraudulent practices or
misrepresented the committee while persuing their caste claim. Perusal
of the original files received from committee depict that an affidavit of
Sitaram Goba Deoraj, who is cousin uncle of the petitioners was filed in
support of relationship of the petitioners with Devendra Sahebrao Deoraj.
So far as the contra entries alleged to have been surfaced during recent
vigilance inquiry, it is difficult to gather that the petitioners were aware
about any such contra entries, which are for the period from 1922 to
1966. Pertinently, the entry of the caste as "Koli" in record of some blood
relatives is considered as contra entries by the Committee. However,
entry of caste "Koli" without further bifurcation of sub-caste may be
observed in many cases. During pre-constitutional era, many persons
chosen not to enter sub-castes like "Dhor" Or "Tokre" due to social
conditions and chosen to enter only "Koli" as caste. Therefore, the entry
as "Koli" in pre-constitutional documents may not be treated as contra
{6}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
entry, in each and every case.
6. Therefore, taking into consideration the contents of the show
cause notice, it is difficult to make out case of fraud or misrepresentation
against the petitioners. The Committee while cancelling caste validity
conferred upon the petitioners, observed that it was obtained by
misrepresenting that Devendra Sahebrao Deoraj is their blood relative
but such evidence could not be tendered by the petitioners. It is further
observed that the contra evidence has been surfaced during the vigilance
inquiry of Usha Kalu Deoraj. Pertinently, the Committee was not
supposed to re-verify the caste claim of the petitioners so also petitioners
were not supposed to re-establish their claim. Now, it is no more res-
integra that the Committee does not possess the powers of review of its
own decision, being a quasi judicial authority. At this stage, reference
can be given to judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of "Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State" (supra),where, in para.46 this Court
observed thus :-
"46. Thus in our opinion, the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
being a statutory body exercising quasi adjudicatory
functions, would not have any jurisdiction to suo motu
verify the past records and initiate an action to reopen past
decision and invalidate the caste validity certificates already
granted. If an inherent power of review is to be read in the
provisions of the 2000 Act, it would lead to a monumental
uncertainty and absurdity in the functioning of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, as it can be at the ipse dixit of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopen concluded cases. This
would lead to patent arbitrariness. For such reasons it is not
possible to come to a conclusion that any inherent power of
review is available with the Caste Scrutiny Committee."
Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in
{7}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
the case of Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra 2022(3)
Mh.L.J. 629 and Anil Shivram Bandawar Vs. District Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee in W.P. No. 8107 of 2021.
7. Looking to the aforesaid legal position and the factual
aspects of this case, even if it is assumed that in cases of fraud or
misrepresentation or gross suppression of material facts, the Committee
would have limited scope to re-open the claim, the committee has to
prima facie record the finding of existence of aforesaid elements and
then only issue show cause notice. Pertinently, in present case Committee
could not arrive at concrete finding and support impugned order giving
adequate reasons. There is nothing to indicate that petitioner No.1 Mayur
was not blood relative of Devendra Sahebrao Deoraj or contra evidence
relied by committee was within their knowledge and same was
intentionally suppressed from the Committee.
8. Pertinently, the impugned order is passed after 20 years of
granting validity of tribe claim in favour of petitioners. We have perused
original files of committee in respect of the caste scrutiny of petitioners.
It show that report of the vigilance cell was called. The requisite
procedure was followed. There was nothing to object genealogy or
relationship of the petitioners with Devendra - validity holder. In fact,
petitioner No.2 Mayur relied on affidavit tendered by Devendra himself
confirming his relationship with the petitioners. Similar affidavit is given
by Sehebrao Ramsing Deoraj and Sitaram Goba Deoraj. Apparently, the
finding recorded by the Committee is contrary to the material available in
the original claim files of petitioners. Consequently, in absence of the
powers of review, the Committee could not have cancelled the caste
validities after a period of 20 years, which may have devastating
{8}
wp 8581.21 F-1.odt
consequences on families of the validity holders.
9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation to
hold that the Committee fell in jurisdictional error while issuing
impugned show cause notices and passing consequential order of
cancellation of validity granted in favour of the petitioners. Hence, we
proceed to pass the following order :-
:ORDER:
[a] Writ petition is allowed;
[b] The impugned order dated 4.10.2021 passed by the
respondent No.2 Committee thereby recalling the earlier
decision granting validity of tribe certificates to the
petitioners and invalidating the tribe certificates, is quashed
and set aside;
[c] Consequently, the original orders granting caste validity
certificates in favour of the petitioners stand restored.
[d] Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to
costs.
[S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J]
grt/-
