Bombay High Court
Rashmi W/O Shyamkumar Barve (Rina D/O ... vs Dy. Commissioner And Member, District ... on 24 September, 2024
Author: Avinash G. Gharote
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, M.S. Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:10636-DB
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2155/2024
PETITIONER : Rashmi w/o Shyamkumar Barve
(Rina d/o Somraj Sonekar, name before marriage) 5
Aged about 37 years, Occ : Zillha Parishad
Member, R/o Ward No.6, Shankar Nagar,
Tah. Parseoni, Kanhan, Dist. Nagpur - 441 401.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. Deputy Commissioner & Member, 10
District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nagpur.
2. Deputy Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra,
Social Justice & Special Assistance 15
Department, Mantralaya Annex Bhawan,
Mumbai.
3. State of Maharashtra, Through
Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural). 20
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. The Election Commission of India,
Through its Chief Election Commission,
New Delhi. 25
5. The Returning Officer and Additional
Collector-9, Ramtek Parliamentary
Constituency, Nagpur, Tah. and District -
Nagpur. 30
6. Vaishali Ishwardas Deviya,
Aged Major, R/o Ward No.4,
Tekade Colony, Post - Godegaon Tekade,
Tah. Parseoni, District - Nagpur. 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
2
(Respondent no.6 deleted as per order
dt. 3.05.2024)
7. Sunil s/o Uttamrao Salve
Aged major, R/o Ward No.9, 5
Siddharth Nagar, Mahadula (Koradi),
Tah. Kamptee District - Nagpur.
8. The Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur
Development Branch (Establishment), 10
Room No.119, Old Secretariat Building
First Floor, Civil Lines, Nagpur - 440001.
(Amended Res. no.8 as per Court's order
dtd. 22/04/24) 15
(Amendment carried out as per Court's
order dated 22/04/24)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
Mr. S.R.Narnaware, Advocate a/w Mr. Sameer Sonwane, Mr. Amit Thakur, Mr. Aaquid
Mirza and Ms Shiba Thakur, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Mr. D.V. Chauhan, GP for respondent Nos.1
to 3, 5 and 8
Ms Neerja Choube, Advocate for respondent no.4 25
Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for respondent no.7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND
SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
Date of reserving the judgment : 09/05/2024 30
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 24/09/2024
JUDGMENT:
(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties. 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
2. Heard Mr. S.R. Narnaware, learned counsel for the
petitioner; Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General with Mr.
D.V. Chavan, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3,
5 and 8; Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for respondent No.7
and Miss Neerja Choube, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 5
3. On 04/04/2024, upon hearing the learned counsels for
the parties for interim relief, we had passed the following order :
"1. Heard Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.
Deven Chauhan, learned Government Pleader for the respondent 10
nos. 1 to 3 and 5, Miss Neerja Choubey learned Counsel for the
respondent no.4 and Mr. S P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent no.7, all of whom have appeared suo
motu.
2. The basic reliefs claimed in the petition is against the decision 15
passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, dated
28/03/2024, (page 135), by which, the caste claim of the
petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste - 'Chambhar' which was
earlier validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 17/02/2020,
on the complaint of respondent No.6 dated 20/03/2024 (page 20
104) has been canceled on the ground, that the earlier validity
certificate which was obtained by the petitioner, on 17/02/2020,
was by practicing fraud. It also challenges the order dated
28/03/2024 (page 150) passed by the Returning Officer of 9
Ramtek Parliamentary Constituency, Nagpur by which the 25
nomination of the petitioner, for the ongoing Lok Sabha Elections,
has been rejected.
2.1. Mr.Narnavare, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing
both these orders contends, that once the Caste Scrutiny
Committee had validated the caste claim of the petitioner by 30
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
issuing validity certificate on 17/02/2020, a complaint against
which, by the respondent No.7 on 27/02/2024 (page 159) was
rejected in the light of Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled
Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward 5
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste
Certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "Caste Certificate
Act"), it was not permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to
have revisited the decision by exercising the power of review.
2.2. It is further contended that even if the decision dated 10
28/03/2024, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee had been taken on
the complaint by the respondent No.6 however, the complaint by
respondent No.6 indicates that it was at the behest of the
respondent No.7 itself, for which he invites my attention to the
last para (on record page 108), in the said complaint, which 15
indicates that the documents for filing the said complaint were
obtained by respondent no.6 from the respondent no.7.
2.3. In support of his contention that the Scrutiny Committee has
no power of review, he relies upon Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of
Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2537 as well as Sameer 20
Hariram Shende Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Gondia in Writ Petition No.1224/2024 (para 28 to 30),
and Ishwar Naga Bondalwar and anr. v. The District Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gadchiroli and others, Writ
Petition No.472/2020 (page 139- in the compilation). 25
2.4. Further relying upon the language of section 7(1) of the Caste
Certificate Act, it is contended that the same would be restricted to
cancellation of certificate issued by the Competent Authority
under Section 4 of the said Act and does not relate to a validity
issued by the Scrutiny Committee under Section 6 of the said Act. 30
He therefore submits that, the impugned decision of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, which cancels the validity, therefore, cannot
be sustained in law.
2.5. Insofar as the locus of the respondent No.7 is concerned, it is
contended that the earlier complaint filed by respondent No.7 in 35
this regard on 27/02/2024 (page 159), already stood rejected,
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
apart from which he would not fall within the definition of an
'aggrieved party', so as to have the locus to challenge the validity
issued in favour of the petitioner, for which he places reliance
upon Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra,
2.6. He further contends that while taking the decision dated
28/03/2024, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee there has been
violation of the principles of natural justice for which he points out
a series of events commencing from the complaint filed by the
(i) It is contended that on 30/01/2024 (page 95) the respondent
no.7 had filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 with the State Information Commissioner,
alleging that the validity in favour of the petitioner was obtained
(ii) Surprisingly the State Information Commissioner took
cognizance of the complaint and by order dated 28/02/2024
directed an enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur Rural
in this regard.
(iii) A challenge to this order was raised in Writ Petition 20
No.1578/2024, by the petitioner in which by an order dated
05/03/2024, this Court prima facie recorded that the State
Information Commissioner had exceeded its jurisdiction, in
directing an enquiry by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur
(Rural) and consequently granted a stay to all the proceedings 25
taken out by the State Information Commissioner (page 103).
(iv) It is submitted that in pursuance to the directions of the State
Information Commissioner, as contained in the order dated
21/02/2024, the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural) has
conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 16/02/2024 30
(page 111) indicating commission of an offence under sections
420, 425, 468, 471 of the IPC, by the petitioner.
(v) However, before the matter in Writ Petition No.1578/2024
could be decided, the State Information Commissioner, by a pursis
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
dated 21/03/2024 (page 123) intimated withdrawal of all the
orders dated 07/02/2024 and 21/02/2024 which were impugned
in that petition on account of which by an order dated
22/02/2024, the Writ Petition No.1578/24 came to be disposed of
(vi) It is just prior to this that on 20/03/2024, the respondent
No.6 filed a complaint of a similar nature as that filed by the
respondent No.7 earlier in point of time (page 104), before the
Caste Scrutiny Committee.
(vii) It is on the basis of this complaint, by the respondent no.6, 10
that the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a notice to the petitioner
on the same day i.e. 20/03/2024 (page 115) calling upon the
petitioner to show cause by 22/03/2024 at 11:00 a.m. as to why
the validity granted in her favour, ought not to be cancelled. It is
material to note, that in this show cause notice dated 20/03/2024 15
(page 115) itself, the Caste Scrutiny Committee records, regarding
the rejection of earlier complaint of a similar nature filed by the
respondent No.7.
(viii) By communication dated 22/03/2024, the petitioner raised
three preliminary objections namely that the complainant had no 20
locus, second the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no power of
review and third that the matter was then pending before the
High Court in Writ Petition No.1578/2024 in which the stay was
granted. A demand for supply of the copy of the complaint made
by the respondent no.6 along with a time of 14 days to submit a 25
detailed explanation was also sought (page 120).
(ix) It is further contended that instead of deciding the
preliminary objection, the Caste Scrutiny Committee by the
communication dated 27/03/2024 (page 134), intimated to the
petitioner, the receipt of the Vigilance Report and had asked the 30
petitioner to remain present on 28/03/2024 at 9:45 a.m. (page
134). It is contended that this communication was received by the
petitioner on 28/03/2024 at 10:00 a.m. thereby making it
impossible for the petitioner to attend.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(x) Since the petitioner could not appear before the Committee on
28/03/2024 for the reason aforesaid, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee by the impugned order dated 28/03/2024, declared
the validity dated 17/02/2020 earlier issued in favour of the
petitioner as having obtained by suppression of material facts and 5
therefore invalid.
(xi) In the light of this narration Mr.Narnaware, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends, that even the principle of natural
justice of according the reasonable opportunity of being heard has
not been followed. According to him, such a requirement is 10
indicated in Section 7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act as well as
Rule 17(11) (i),(ii) & (iii) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. He
therefore submits that on this touchstone also the action of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee in invalidating the caste claim of the
2.7. It is also contended by him, relying upon the communication
dated 22/03/2024, (page 128), addressed by the Under Secretary
of the State of Maharashtra, to the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Nagpur, that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was not
an independent decision, but was politically motivated. 20
2.8. It is therefore, in the light of above position, it is contended
that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and all
consequent actions are not tenable in law, and need to be stayed.
2.9. Mr.Chavan, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the
respondents No.1 to 3 and 5, contends, that the impugned 25
decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 28/03/2024,
against the petitioner, was not ex-parte but on each and every
stage, the petitioner was put to notice. Mr.Chavan, learned
Government Pleader submits that the communication dated
27/03/2024, asking the petitioner to attend the Caste Scrutiny 30
Committee on 28/03/2024 at 9.45 a.m., was in fact served upon
the petitioner by e-mail on 27/03/2024 at 11.45 p.m. and
therefore the petitioner was aware on 27/03/2024 itself in this
regard and therefore there is no violation of the principles of
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
2.10. He further relies upon the language of Section 7(1) of the
Caste Certificate Act, to contend that the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, had power to recall validity issued, in case fraud is
committed by a person in whose favour it is issued.
2.11. Insofar as locus is concerned, he contends, that Section 7(1) 5
of the Caste Certificate Act itself empowers the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to take action either suo motu or otherwise, which
would indicate that such an action can be initiated even on the
basis of the illegality being brought to the notice of the Committee
by any person whomsoever, and therefore, the question of locus 10
would be immaterial, for which, reliance is placed by him on
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone v. State of Maharashtra, reported in
(2015) 14 SCC 497.
2.12. He submits that even if the entire procedure or orders passed
by the State Information Commissioner were ignored, even then, 15
the independent examination of the impugned order of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, would indicate, that relevant material has
been considered for passing the said decision which was necessary
on the ground that while issuing the validity dated 17/02/2020
(page 165), no vigilance enquiry was carried out, which according 20
to him is necessary in view of District Collector, Satara and anr. v.
Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 166 (para 28
to 32), in spite of which directions, the vigilance was not
conducted, justifying the revisiting of the grant of validity.
2.13. It is further contended by him that the situation has lost its 25
urgency inasmuch as the nomination of the petitioner, was
rejected on 28/03/2024 and the stage has proceeded to the
allotment of symbols which also has been crossed. It is therefore
contended, relying upon N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning
Officer, reported in AIR 1952 SC 64 (para 8) that no interference 30
in the election process now is permissible and the only remedy is
to question the result of the election by way of an Election
Petition.
2.14. He further points out, that the membership of the petitioner
of Zilla Parishad, Nagpur also has consequently being canceled by 35
the order dated 02/04/2024 passed by the Divisional
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Commissioner, Nagpur.
2.15. It is therefore, contended, that nothing has survived in the
petition so far as grant of interim relief is concerned.
3. Mr. S. P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent No.7 contends that the petition challenging the 5
rejection of nomination paper of the petitioner, was clearly not
maintainable, in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Ponnuswami (supra) and in the light of what is laid down in
Section 100(1)(c) of Representation of People Act 1951 and
election petition was now the only remedy available. 10
4. Ms. Neerja Choube, learned counsel for the respondent No.4
submits, that the decision by the Returning Officer, to reject the
nomination paper of the petitioner, was justified as the seat was
reserved for a Scheduled Caste candidate and since the petitioner
had lost that status, on account of her validity being declared as 15
illegal, the only option open for the Returning officer was to reject
her nomination. She further contends that now, the only mode of
questioning the rejection of the nomination was by filing an
election petition, as the process of election had already
commenced. Ms Choube, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 20
relies on Ponnuswami (supra) also places reliance upon Mohinder
Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) 1 SCC
405 and the proposition enunciated in para-92(1)(a) and (b). She
also places reliance upon Election Commission of India v. Shivaji
reported in (1988) 1 SCC 277 (para-6) and Manda Jaganath v. 25
K.S.Rathnam, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 492 paras-12 and 13 to
contend that the remedy of the petitioner, vis-a-vis the rejection of
the nomination paper would be only by filing an election petition
under the relevant provisions of the Representation of People Act,
5. Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal
submits that Mangesh Kashid (supra) was not attracted on account
of language of Section 7(2) of the Certificate Act of 2000. He
submits, by relying upon State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770 (para 108) that in case, 35
the basis of the proceedings is gone, all consequential acts, actions,
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
orders would fall to the ground automatically. He also places
reliance upon Union Territory of Ladakh and others v. J & K
National Conference reported in 2023 LawSuit (SC) 890, in
support of his contention, that interference by this Court in the
order dated 28/03/2024 by the Returning Officer will be 5
permissible.
6. He also submits, that though on an earlier occasion, the notice
dated 20/03/2024 was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court
by filing petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, vide Diary
No.1443/2024, in the light of the pendency of the present 10
petition, the same was withdrawn on 01/04/2024.
7. Having heard the above arguments, we are of the considered
opinion that a case for deciding the controversy on its merits has
been made out. The question whether the power to cancel the
validity vests with the Caste Scrutiny Committee in view of the 15
language of Sec.7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act or the High Court
also needs determination. The plea that when on similar
allegations, by the respondent no.7, the Caste Scrutiny Committee
itself had dismissed the complaint of the respondent no.7, then on
the same set of allegations, whether it was permissible for it to 20
again consider the objection to the caste validity of the petitioner
also needs determination. The manner in which the proceedings
were conducted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the filing of
the complaint by the respondent No.6 on 20/03/2024 and the
passing of the impugned order on 28/03/2024, within a period of 25
nine days, also needs to be gone into in light of the plea regarding
violation of principles of natural justice and denial of a fair
opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, issue notice for final disposal
returnable on 22/04/2024. Learned Government Pleader Mr.
Chavan waives notice for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5. Miss. 30
Choube waives notice for the respondent no.4 and Mr.
S.P.Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel waives notice for the
respondent no.7. The petitioner shall serve the respondent no.6 by
all modes permissible in law including hamdast by the returnable
date. The respondents who have appeared shall complete their 35
pleadings by the returnable date, with advance copies to the
petitioner.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
8. Insofar as the plea for interim relief vis-à-vis the impugned
order dated 28/03/2024 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee
is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the narration
of events, as recorded above, which have led to the cancellation of
the validity of the caste certificate of the petitioner, prima facie, 5
indicate that no reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing has
been afforded to the petitioner, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,
which is evident by the admitted position on record that the notice
indicating the supply of the vigilance report to the petitioner, even
presuming what has been said by Mr. Chavan learned Government 10
Pleader, was sent by e-mail on 27/03/2024 at 11.45 p.m. asking
the petitioner to remain present before the Caste Scrutiny
Committee on 28/03/2024 at 9:45 a.m., to be correct, clearly
cannot be considered to be a reasonable opportunity.
Section 7 (1) and (2) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 read as 15
under:
"7. Confiscation and cancellation of false Caste Certificate.
-(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act,
a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), 20
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Category has obtained a false Caste Certificate
to the effect that either himself or his children belong to
such Castes, Tribes or Classes, the Scrutiny Committee
may, suo motu, or otherwise call for the record and 25
enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is
of the opinion that the certificate was obtained
fraudulently, it shall, by an order cancel and confiscate the
certificate by following such procedure as prescribed, after
giving the person concerned an opportunity of being 30
heard, and communicate the same to the concerned person
and the concerned authority, if any.
(2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under this
Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any
authority or Court except the High Court under Article 226 35
of the Constitution of India."
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Rules 17(11) (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Caste Certificate
Rules, 2012 read as under:
"17. Procedure of Scrutiny Committee.-
(1).....
(3) ..........
(4) ..........
(5) ..........
(6) ..........
(8) ..........
(9) ..........
(10) ..........
(11) (i) In case of those cases which are refered to
Vigilance Cell, upon considering the 'Report of Vigilance 15
Cell', if the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the
claim of the applicant, it shall call upon the applicant to
prove his Caste claim, by discharging his burden, as
contemplated under section 8 of the Act, by issuing a
notice in FORM-25 coupled with copy of 'Report of 20
Vigilance Inquiry';
(ii) After issuance of notice/intimation, if
applicant requests, by way of written application, for
copies of vigilance inquiry report or any other document or
prays for adjournment, reasonable time for final hearing or 25
for submitting written submission, it may be granted;
(iii) After affording an opportunity of hearing,
Scrutiny Committee shall,-
(a) on being satisfied regarding the genuineness
of the Caste claim, decide the matter finally, upon 30
appreciation of evidence, by its reasoned decision, i.e.
decision of committee and issue Certificate of Validity, in
FORM-24; and forward the same to concerned authorities
within thirty days, by preserving its scanned copy (in
(b) on being not satisfied about the genuineness
of the claim and veracity of the Caste Certificate, it shall
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
pass its decision, thereby canceling and confiscating the
original Caste Certificate and invalidating the Caste or
Tribe Claim of the applicant / claimant;
(c) upon invalidation of Caste or Tribe claim, the
Caste Certificate under inquiry shall be stamped as 5
"canceled and confiscated", and forward the same along
with copy of decision, to the Competent Authority and
concerned parties, by preserving its scanned copy (in
electronic form);
(d) after conclusion of the hearing of the case, 10
the work of writing of the decision shall be assigned to one
of its member by the Scrutiny Committee;
(e) in case of difference of opinion amongst the
members of Committee, on the main order of majority, the
dissenting member shall write his separate order; 15
(f) The name of member of Committee to whom
work of writing final order was assigned, shall be
mentioned in the Roznama. Moreover, front page of final
order shall disclose the date of the order."
9. That a reasonable opportunity has to be afforded is clearly spelt
out from a reading of section 7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act, as
well as Rules of 2012, framed thereunder and specifically Rules
17(11) (i),(ii) & (iii) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. Apart
from the above, the impugned order canceling the caste validity 25
of the petitioner, has been passed on 28/03/2024 itself, the date
on which, the petitioner was asked to appear. The tearing hurry,
which is indicated from the narration of events above, resulting in
completion of the enquiry within a period of nine days from the
date of the filing of the complaint on 20/03/2024 and passing of 30
the impugned order on 28/03/2024 by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, leaves much to be said about the conduct of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur in the matter of passing of the
impugned order dated 28/03/2024. The role of the State
Information Commissioner, for the State, in directing enquiry into 35
the caste validity granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which
was definitely, beyond his jurisdiction, appears to be the genesis of
the entire issue. Though the order has subsequently been
withdrawn, that does not absolve the State Information
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Commissioner, of culpability in the matter, as it is his order dated
28/02/2024, which has set the ball rolling. Hence by way of an
interim order, we direct that the effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 28/03/2024, passed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee shall stand stayed till further orders. 5
10. Insofar as the plea for interim relief vis-à-vis the impugned
order dated 28/03/2024 passed by the Returning Officer, rejecting
the nomination of the petitioner is concerned, it is necessary to
note that the election programme has commenced from
20/03/2024 and has reached a stage where admittedly, as of 10
today, even the election symbols have been allotted. In
Ponnuswami (supra) the 6 Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, while considering the scope of interference by the High
Court in view of the bar as contained in Article 329(b) of the
"8. In construing this article, reference was made by both the
parties in the course of their arguments to the other articles in
the same Part, namely, Articles 324, 325, 326, 327 and 328.
Article 324 provides for the constitution and appointment of
an Election Commissioner to superintend, direct and control 20
elections to the legislatures; Article 325 prohibits
discrimination against electors on the ground of religion,
race, caste or sex; Article 326 provides for adult suffrage;
Article 327 empowers Parliament to pass laws making
provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in 25
connection with, elections to the legislatures, subject to the
provisions of the Constitution; and Article 328 is a
complementary article giving power to the State Legislature
to make provision with respect to all matters relating to, or in
connection with, elections to the State Legislature. A notable 30
difference in the language used in Articles 327 and 328 on the
one hand, and Article 329 on the other, is that while the first
two articles begin with the words "subject to the provisions of
this Constitution", the last article begins with the words
"notwithstanding anything in this Constitution". It was 35
conceded at the Bar that the effect of this difference in
language is that whereas any law made by Parliament under
Article 327, or by the State Legislatures under Article 328,
cannot exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court under
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Article 226 of the Constitution, that jurisdiction is excluded in
regard to matters provided for in Article 329 "
11. The dictum in Ponnuswami (supra) has been further
considered by a still larger Bench of seven Judges of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, 5
reported in (1954) 2 SCC 881, where the above position has been
accepted and it has been clarified that the bar under Article
329(b) of the Constitution would not be attracted, only where an
election petition, questioning the election already stands filed
before the Tribunal, for in that case, the matter has to be viewed 10
in light of the general powers of superintendence of the High
Court over the Tribunals. The position has been further considered
by Constitution Bench of Five Judges in Mohinder Singh Gill
(supra) in the following terms :
92. Diffusion, even more elaborate discussion, tends to blur 15
the precision of the conclusion in a judgment and so it is
meet that we, synopsize the formulations. Of course, the
condensed statement we make is for convenience, not for
exclusion of the relevance or attenuation of the binding
impact of the detailed argumentation. For this limited 20
purpose, we set down our holdings :
1 (a) Article 329(b) is a blanket ban on litigative challenges
to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and its
officers for carrying forward the process of election to its
culmination in the formal declaration of the result. 25
(b) Election, in this context, has a very wide connotation
commencing from the Presidential notification calling upon
the electorate to elect and culminating in the final
declaration of the returned candidate."
12. The position of non-interference has also been reiterated in 30
Ram Phal Kundu v. Kamal Sharma, reported in (2004) 2 SCC
759 (para 24), by holding that once the nomination paper of a
candidate is rejected, the Representation of People Act, 1951,
provides only one remedy, that remedy being by an election
petition to be presented after the election is over and there is 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
no remedy provided at any intermediate stage, by relying upon
Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and ECI v. Shivaji (supra). In
Manda Jaganath v. K. S. Rathnam (supra), which was a case of
rejection of Form B, which was found to be unacceptable and
therefore though the nomination was accepted, the symbol 5
reserved for the Telangana Rashtra Samithi was not allotted,
while holding that whether the Returning Officer is justified in
rejecting this Form B submitted by the first respondent therein
or not, was not a matter for the High Court to decide in the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction and this issue should be agitated 10
by an aggrieved party in an election petition only, it was also
held that under Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India there
is a specific prohibition against any challenge to an election
either to the Houses of Parliament or to the Houses of
Legislature of the State except by an election petition presented 15
to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for in
a law made by the appropriate legislature. Parliament has by
enacting the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provided
for such a forum for questioning such elections hence, under
Article 329(b) no forum other than such forum constituted 20
under the RP Act can entertain a complaint against any
election. It was also held that the word "election" has been
judicially defined by various authorities of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, to mean any and every act taken by the competent
authority after the publication of the election notification. 25
13. In Vinod Pandurang Bharsakade v. Returning Officer,
reported in 2003 (4) Mh.L.J. 359, the Full bench of this Court
while considering Article 243-O(b) of the Constitution, the
language of which is similar to that used in Article 329(b) of
the Constitution, in the context of rejection of the nomination 30
paper in Panchayat elections, held as under:
"67. To us, the law appears to be well settled and it is that
once the election process has started, it has to be over in
accordance with the provisions of the relevant statute.
Once an election notification is issued, the process can be 35
said to have started. There are various stages of election.
One of such stages is scrutiny of nomination papers. It is
thus a part and parcel of election process. The law
contemplates only one attack in election matters, and that
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
too, after the election is over. A petition under Article 226
of the Constitution against rejection of nomination paper,
therefore, cannot lie. Since, in the instant cases,
nomination papers of the petitioner have been rejected,
keeping in view the mandate of the Constitution in Article 5
243-O(b) and sections 15 and 15-A of the Act, the remedy
available to the petitioners is to file election petition in
accordance with provisions of the Act and not to invoke
extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226
14. Another Full Bench of this Court in Karmaveer Tulshiram
Autade & ors v. State Election Commission and connected
matters reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 1150 while
considering a similar challenge as was considered in Vinod
Pandurang Bharsakade (supra) has answered the questions as 15
under :
Sr. Question Opinion
No.
(i) Does allowing a challenge (i) Allowing a challenge
in a writ petition to in a writ petition to
rejection of nomination rejection of nomination
form to contest an form to contest an
election and granting the election and granting
relief claimed by setting the relief claimed by
aside such order of setting aside such order
rejection, amount to of rejection is definitely
intervention, obstruction not a step to subserve
or protraction of the the progress of election
election or is it a step to and/or facilitate its
facilitate the process of completion in the sense
completion of election? enunciated in Mohinder
Singh Gill (supra) and
explained in Ashok
Kumar (supra) though it
may not always amount
to intervention,
obstruction or
protraction of the
election;
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(ii) Whether rejection of (ii) Article 243-O(b) of
nomination form would the Constitution of India
attract the provisions of is a bar for entertaining
Article 243-O(b) of the a writ petition under
Constitution of India? Article 226 of the
Constitution against an
order passed by the
Returning Officer
rejecting nomination
paper and such
provision would clearly
be attracted whenever a
writ petition is
presented before a Court
for its consideration;
15. The above position clearly indicates that rejection of a
nomination paper by the Returning Officer, would not be
susceptible to a challenge before this Court by invoking the
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the 5
remedy would be an election petition, and we are bound by the
aforesaid view.
16. It is also material to note that Sec.100(1)(c) of the
Representation of People Act, 1951, while delineating the
grounds on which an election can be challenged, provides that 10
improper rejection of the nomination can be one of the grounds
available for challenge of the election, which in turn would
indicate that such a challenge at an interim stage would not be
permissible, considering that it cannot be considered as a step
in aid of the election. The position, rather would be otherwise 15
and would result in obstructing the conduct of the election,
which is impermissible.
17. Though Mr. Narnavare, learned Counsel for the petitioner
relies upon Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) and specifically
paras 108 to 110, to contend that once the impugned order 20
goes, all consequent orders automatically vanish, that however,
has to be viewed in light of the mandate of Article 329(b) of
the Constitution and Sec.100(1)(c) of the Representation of
People Act, 1951, as indicated above. That apart the challenge
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
to the impugned order dated 28/03/2024 passed by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, is still under consideration on account of
which reliance upon Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) is of no
assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner.
18. J & K National Conference (supra) was a case pertaining to 5
the non-allocation of the plough symbol in the general elections
of Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council, in spite of
the same having been reserved, for the J & K National
Conference, to its candidates and the interference by the
learned Single Judge, by directing notification of this symbol 10
allotted to the party in terms of para-10 and 10(A) of the
Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and
to allow the candidate set up by the petitioner party to contest
on the reserved election symbol already allotted to the party,
was clearly a step in aid of the election, on which count it was 15
held that the interference was warranted (para 40). As
indicated above, interference in the rejection of the nomination
paper by the Returning Officer, is not something, which can be
considered as a step in aid of the election process, as the
remedy there against, is only by way of an election petition 20
under section 80 of the RP Act, 1951 in which the plea that the
nomination has been improperly rejected is open to be raised
for declaring election to be void, under section 100(1)(c) of the
RP Act, 1951.
19. We therefore are of the opinion, that though the action of 25
the Caste Scrutiny Committee in passing the impugned order
dated 28/03/2024, cannot be countenanced and the order
dated 28/03/2024 by the Returning Officer is a fall out of the
said order, however, in view of the law as applicable in the
matter, as stated above, we are unable to grant any interim 30
relief, to the petitioner vis-à-vis the order dated 28/03/2024
passed by the Returning Officer. The prayer therefore in that
regard, for interim relief, visa-vis the order dated 28/03/2024
by the Returning Officer, will have to be turned down.
20. The matter may now be posted on 22/04/2024 as indicated 35
earlier for final disposal."
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
4. The factual position, as narrated in para 2.6 of the interim
order dated 04/04/2024, substantially remains the same, except for
the addition that the initial validity granted to the petitioner by the
Caste Scrutiny Committee ("CSC", for short hereinafter) was again
tested by the CSC, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 5
Court in the case of District Collector, Satara and another Vs.
Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (2019) 10 SCC 166 and a validity was
again issued to the petitioner by the CSC on 17/02/2020 (pg.165),
which has now been cancelled by the CSC by the impugned decision.
So also, subsequently the membership of the petitioner of the Zilla 10
Parishad, Nagpur, has also been cancelled on account of the
impugned decision of the CSC.
5. In addition to the arguments canvassed for the interim
relief, as stated above, Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the 15
petitioner, contends that the issuance of validity to the petitioner by
the CSC, dated 17/02/2020 (pg.165) was on the basis of documents
and evidence produced before it, which were verified and
scrutinized by the CSC, only after which the caste claim of the
petitioner was granted. It is, therefore, submitted that once the same 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
is issued, in light of the mandate of Section 7(2) of 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 ["Caste Certificate Act, 2000", for short 5
hereinafter], the CSC had no jurisdiction or authority to review or
recall the same, as in light of the mandate of Section 7 (2) the
decision attains finality, and is incapable of being questioned before
any Court, except this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
That being so, he submits that the CSC did not have any jurisdiction 10
whatsoever, to revisit the validity certificate granted to the petitioner.
He places heavy reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2741-2743 of 2024, Navneet Kaur
Harbhajansingh Kundles @ Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others [Civil Appeal No(s).2741-2743 of 2024 15
decided on 04/04/2024 (Supreme Court)] and specifically paras 12,
17, 19, 20 to 22 to contend that the CSC had no power of review. It
is also contended, by relying upon Navneet Kaur Rana (supra) that,
an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell is not mandatory in every case and
only in case the CSC is not satisfied with the documents placed on 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
record in support of the tribe claim, that an enquiry by the Vigilance
Cell is warranted. Reliance for this proposition is also placed upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on Ishwar s/o Naga
Bondalwar and another Vs. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee (Writ Petition No.472/2020, decided on 26/07/2021) 5
(para 6); Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department
and another 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1013; 2024 (1) Bom CR 294
(paras 27, 28, 29, 30 and 34); Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of
Maharashtra Through its Secretary Tribal Development Department 10
and others 2023 SCC OnLine Bom. 2537 (para 40, 46); Bharat
Bhagwant Tayade Vs. The State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Tribal Development Deparatment, Mantralaya, Mumbai
400 032 and others 2022 SCC OnLine Bom. 637.
5.1. On the ground of absence of locus to the respondent 15
No.6/7 to file a complaint before the CSC and for the CSC, to
undertake the exercise of invalidating the tribe claim of the
petitioner, in respect of the validity already granted, reliance is
placed upon Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others (2013) 4 SCC 465 (para 22 and 39). He 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
further relies upon Dinesh Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (Criminal Appeal No.214/2024, decided on 11/01/2024)
AIR 2024 SC 574 (para 39) to submit that substantial costs should
be imposed.
5.2. It is, therefore, contended, that the dictum of the Hon'ble 5
Apex Court in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (Supra-SC) could not be
applied, again, to the case of the petitioner, as consequent to the said
judgment, the validity was issued again.
5.3. It is also contended that once the first complaint by
respondent No.7 stood rejected in terms of the mandate of Section 7 10
(2) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, the second complaint by
respondent No.6 on the same ground could not have been
entertained by the CSC at all.
5.4. By inviting our attention to the language of Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic 15
Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance And Verification Of) Caste Certificate Rules,
2012 ["Caste Certificate Rules, 2012" for short hereinafter] it is
contended that the mandatory procedure therein was clearly ignored
and the impugned decision was under political pressure and a 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
deliberate attempt on part of the respondents, to undermine the rule
of law. The very fact that the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the
petitioner was to be held on 28/03/2024 at which time the certified
copy of the decision of the CSC was produced, in itself was
indicative, of the fact that the CSC, was misusing its position and 5
was acting under the thumb of the Deputy Secretary.
5.5. Further relying upon Rule 17 (8) of the Caste Certificate
Rules, 2012 it is contended that reasonable time for replying to the
vigilance report had to be granted, which has not been done, which
5.6. Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner relies
upon the following decisions :-
(i) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand &
Others, Civil Appeal No(s).4864/2021, decided on
(ii) Devendra S/o Dashrath Sahare Vs. District
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur and
Another, [Writ Petition No.2972/2021, decided on
(iii) State of Maharashtra & Others Vs. Prashant
Shamraoji Shende, Special Leave to Appeal (C)
No(s). 13095/2017, decided on 18.04.2022.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(iv) Prashant Shamraoji Shende Vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3, Nagpur
& Others, Writ Petition No.6836/2013, decided on
14.12.2016. para 3 & 4.
(v) Sonal Prakash Bakade Vs. Joint
Commissioner and Vice Chairman, S. T. C. C. S. C.,
Amravati, Writ Petition No.289/2016, decided on
22.08.2016.
(vi) Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others, Civil Application
No.5186/2001, decided on 18.11.2003, para 5.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee
No.3, Nagpur & Another, 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 946.
(viii) Dhammanand s/o Maniram Jambhulkar Vs.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 20
No.3, Nagpur & Another, Writ Petition No.559/2014,
decided on 18.06.2014, para 10-13.
(ix) Badalsingh s/o Bharosa Rawale Vs.
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 25
No.3, Nagpur & Another, Writ Petition Nos.6889, 2591
& 6586/2014, decided on 30.10.2015, para 22 & 24.
(x) Vaibhav Sudhakar Patne Vs. Divisional
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1, Nagpur 30
& Others, Writ Petition No.5392/2016, decided on
19.07.2019, para 7 & 9.
(xi) Pawankumar s/o Gattayya Agdari Vs. The
District Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Chandrapur & Ors. Writ Petition No. 4558/2018,
decided on 25.07.2019.
(xii) Sameer Hariram Shendre Vs. The Scheduled
Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gondia, 5
Writ Petition No.1224/2024, decided on 22.02.2024,
para 2.
(xiii) Rajwardhan Ishwardas Metekar Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Others, Writ Petition No.4906/2021, 10
decided on 14.03.2024.
(xiv) Ku. Priyanka Nagesh Erla Vs. District Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Chandrapur &
Another, Writ Petition No.919/2020, decided on 15
30.08.2022, para 9.
(xv) Hari Singh Vs. State of Haryana, Criminal
Appeal No.698/1985, decided on 13.04.1993.
(xvi) Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat
Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others [Supreme Court] Civil Appeal No.2502/2022
decided on 24/03/2023.
(xvii) Shashant Giridhar Nandanwar Vs. State of
Maharashtra [Civil Application No.185/2024 in Writ
Petition No.6407/2023, decided on 23/04/2024].
(xviii) Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad Vs. The State of 30
Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition No.4068/2008,
decided on 14/07/2008].
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(xix) Ashwin Rajendra Parate Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition No.2716/2022,
decided on 24/06/2022].
(xx) Abhijit Suryakant Thakar and another Vs. 5
The State of Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition
No.4407/2019, decided on 5/1/2023].
(xxi) Shreyash Pradip Dange Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition No.3656/2018, 10
decided on 28/09/2018].
(xxii) Sayanna Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others [Supreme Court] Civil appeal No.6253/2009,
(xxiii) Dinesh Gupta Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another [Criminal Appeal No.214/2024, decided on
11/01/2024].
(xxiv) Jankesh Govardhan Sonawale Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition
No.867/2017, decided on 17/8/2021].
(xxv) Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and others 25
Vs. State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal
Development Department and another, 2023 SCC
OnLine Bom. 1023.
(xxvi) Ishwar s/o Naga Bondalwar and another Vs. 30
The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Gadchiroli through its Principal Secretary and others
[Writ Petition No.472/2020, decided on 26/07/2021].
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(xxvii) Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @
Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana Vs. The State of Maharashtra
and others [Civil Appeal No(s).2741-2743 of 2024
decided on 04/04/2024 (Supreme Court)].
(xxviii) Union Territory of Ladakh and others; Union
Territory of Ladakh through its Chief Secretary, Chief
Election Officer Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National
Conference and another, 2023 LawSuit SC) 890.
(xxix) Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and otehrs Vs.
Director Health Services, Haryana and others decided
on 11/07/2013.
(xxx) Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra 15
Through its Secretary Tribal Development Department
and others [Writ Petition No.8822/2022, decided on
01/11/2023]; 2023 SCC OnLine Bom. 2537.
(xxxi) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State 20
of Maharashtra and others [Civil Appeal
No.7728/2012, decided on 08/11/2022 (Supreme
Court)].
(xxxii) Bharat Bhagwant Tayade Vs. The State of 25
Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 and others
(Writ Petition No.11617/2017 decided on
15/03/2022) ; 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 637.
(xxxiii) Shreyash Pradip Dange Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others [Writ Petition No.3656/2018,
decided on 28/09/2018].
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
6. Dr. Birendra Saraf, the learned Advocate General assisted
by Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government Pleader for the
respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 8 contends as under :
(i) The validity issued to the petitioner, on 17/02/2020 (pg.165),
was issued without a vigilance, which is the reason, why the need 5
for revisiting it was felt by the CSC.
(ii) That respondent No.7, in his communication addressed to the
CSC, had indicated that the genealogy given by the petitioner was
false, on account of which the police enquiry report was initiated,
which prima facie indicated a case of fraud. The enquiry was not 10
initiated on the basis of the police report, but on the basis of the
material, as indicated in the complaint of respondent No.6, which
indicated a prima facie case of fraud.
(iii) It is the duty of the CSC, in case fraud is brought to its notice,
to initiate an inquiry, even suo motu by recalling the certificate. 15
(iv) The vigilance enquiry report prima facie indicates a fraud
being practiced by the petitioner in obtaining the validity by
incorrectly showing relations from the maternal side; the father of
the petitioner also being shown as illiterate when in fact he was
literate, as is indicated by the certificate, which is now placed on 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
record by the petitioner to claim support regarding the validity
granted.
(v) Judicial proprietary requires that in case an earlier judgment,
was not considered [para 19 of the judgment in Bharat Nagu Garud
(supra)], the earlier judgment on the point would prevail. 5
(vi) Since the petitioner realizes that fraud is demonstrated,
learned counsel for the petitioner is not willing to address the Court
on merits.
(vii) Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra) indicated a window of
30/07/2011 and 31/08/2012, during which the certificates which 10
were issued were susceptible as no proper exercise for verification
could have been carried out given the time frame in which the
certificates were issued. The original certificate to the petitioner was
dated 20/01/2012 and therefore, fell within this window and on this
ground the recall was proper (para 28 and 32), leading to the 15
issuance of the validity certificate dated 17/02/2020 (pg.165) to the
petitioner, which subsequently on account of the complaint
regarding fraud being practiced in its obtaining, on account of false
genealogy and documents, has been cancelled.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(viii) Navneet Rana (supra), according to him, was a case in which
the first validity issued in favour of the petitioner, was after a full
vigilance enquiry and therefore, the recall was held to be incorrect
and improper. This would not apply to the case of the petitioner, in
which, on both the occasions, 20/01/2012 and 17/02/2020 the 5
validity was without vigilance.
(ix) If the Committee has power to recall, then from where the
information comes, becomes immaterial.
(x) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, for absence of locus, has been 10
dealt with in Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 (Writ Petition No.7518/2016 decided on
26/04/2018), in which it has been held that in exceptional
circumstances even if the bona fides of a third person are doubted, 15
but the issue raised by him in the opinion of the Court requires
consideration, the Court may proceed suo motu in the said respect.
It is, therefore, contended that the complaint by respondent No.6
was rightly acted upon by the CSC.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(xi) It is contended that even if there was no power to review, but
a power to recall would be available to the CSC, if it was brought to
its notice that the validity was obtained by fraud or procedure was
not followed.
(xii) The complaint from respondent No.7 was not accompanied by 5
any document/material in its support, and therefore, no cognizance
was taken, however, the subsequent complaint by respondent No.6
was accompanied with the copy of the police report and had other
material indicating a fraud being practiced in obtaining the validity.
Therefore, cognizance was taken as there was something on record 10
to indicate fraud. The decision was not based upon the police report
but material otherwise disclosed from the complaint.
(xiii) Section 7 (1) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 is not the only
source of power.
(xiv) The conduct of the petitioner, in not complying with the 15
timelines is required to be taken into consideration. When notice
was issued on 20/03/2024 by the CSC (pg.115), no reply was given
by the petitioner, but instead a preliminary objection was raised
regarding jurisdiction and locus of respondent No.6 and time to file
reply was sought. Even after the vigilance when intimation was 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
given on 27/03/2024 to appear before the Committee on
28/03/2024, no objection was raised to the vigilance report, as a
result of which, the CSC passed an order. Though it was open for the
petitioner to file a counter-affidavit in response to the vigilance,
controverting the material found in the vigilance enquiry, by not 5
doing so, the petitioner has forfeited her right to object.
(xv) In the reply of the respondents, details of the vigilance enquiry
have been summarized, which need to be taken into consideration
for the purpose of deciding the petition, as it indicates false
information being provided by the petitioner regarding the 10
genealogy tree as well as other factual aspects.
6.1. In respect of Bharat Nagu Garud (supra) it is contended
that the argument advanced regarding power of recall with the CSC
has been misconstrued as power of review, on account of which,
6.2. In Rakesh Umbarje (supra) it is contended that though the
High Court had directed issuance of validity, the CSC had reopened
and the power of recall has not been considered.
6.3. Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General for respondent Nos.1
to 3 and 5 relies upon the following decisions : 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(i) District Collector, Satara and another Vs.
Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (2019) 10 SCC 166.
(ii) Sangita Sharad Kolse Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others 2006 SCC Online Bom. 1713.
Bhivapurkar and others (2008) 9 SCC 54.
(iv) Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar Vs. Scheduled
Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune and
another 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 433.
(v) Sandeep s/o Manoharrao Waysal Vs. State of 10
Maharashtra and others 2010 (1) Mh.L.J. 205
(vi) Apoorva d/o Vijay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste
Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and others 2010
(6) Mh.L.J. 401.
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.1954 of 2000)
[22nd August 2012].
(vii-B) Kum Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others [Special Leave Petition (C)
(viii-A) Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2013 SCC OnLine Bom. 1999 (Decided
on 17th December, 2013).
(viii-B) Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(ix-A) Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin Vs. The State
of Maharashtra (Through its Secretary), Social Welfare
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32 [Writ Petition
No.7518 of 2016 decided on 26th April, 2018].
(ix-B) Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin Vs. State of 5
Maharashtra 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2989.
(x-A) Rajesh Ramesh Gaikwad Vs. State of
Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.9237 of 2016, decided
on 2nd July, 2019].
Maharashtra and others (SLP No.17107/2019)
[dismissed as withdrawn] (29th July, 2019).
(xi) Farha Ashfaqali Shaha Vs. Member
Secretary & Research Officer, Caste Certificate
(16th August, 2019).
(xii) Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another 2022 SCC OnLine Bom.
10379.
(xiii) Balaji Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its 20
Secretary, Tribal Development Department and
another 2022 SCC OnLine Bom. 1888.
(xiv) Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt.
Ltd (1996) 5 SCC 550.
Rajendra Singh and others (2000) 3 SCC 581.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(xvi) Indian National Congress (I) Vs. Institute of
Social Welfare and others (2002) 5 SCC 685.
(xvii) Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital
Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2021) 13
7. The factual position in the instant matter is as under :
7.1. The petitioner, claiming to be belonging to 'Chambhar',
Scheduled Caste, had submitted the caste certificate granted to her
by the Competent Authority dated 12/12/2007 (pg.163), to the CSC 10
for verification and issuance of a validity.
7.2. The CSC on 20/01/2012, after examining the caste
certificate and the documents and being satisfied with it, had
without directing any vigilance enquiry, issued a validity bearing
7.3. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC), which indicated a window of
30/07/2011 and 31/08/2012, during which the certificates which
were issued were susceptible, as no proper exercise could have been
carried out given the time frame in which the certificates were 20
issued and as the original validity certificate to the petitioner was of
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
20/01/2012 and therefore, fell within this window, on this ground,
the CSC recalled the same.
7.4. The CSC, thereafter upon verification of the certificate and
documents, again issued a validity to the petitioner on 17/02/2020,
7.5. On 30/01/2024 (pg.95) respondent No.7 had filed a
complaint under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005
with the State Information Commissioner, alleging that the validity
in favour of the petitioner was obtained by practicing fraud.
7.6. The State Information Commissioner took cognizance of 10
the complaint and by order dated 28/02/2024 directed an enquiry
by the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural).
7.7. A challenge to this order was raised in Writ Petition
No.1578/2024, by the petitioner, in which by an order dated
05/03/2024, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, prima facie, 15
recorded that the State Information Commissioner had exceeded his
jurisdiction, in directing an enquiry by the Superintendent of Police,
Nagpur (Rural) and consequently, granted a stay to all the
proceedings taken out, by the State Information Commissioner
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
7.8. However, pursuance to the directions of the State
Information Commissioner, as contained in the order dated
21/02/2024, the Superintendent of Police, Nagpur (Rural)
conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 16/02/2024
(pg.111) indicating commission of an offence under Sections 420, 5
425, 468, 471 of the IPC, by the petitioner.
7.9. Before the matter in Writ Petition No.1578/2024 could
be decided, the State Information Commissioner, by a pursis dated
21/03/2024 (pg.123) intimated withdrawal of all the orders dated
07/02/2024 and 21/02/2024, which were impugned in that 10
petition, on account of which, by an order dated 22/03/2024, Writ
Petition No.1578/2024 came to be disposed of (pg.127).
7.10. It is just prior to this that on 20/03/2024, respondent
No.6 filed a complaint of a similar nature as that filed by respondent
No.7 earlier in point of time (pg.104), before the CSC. 15
7.11. It is on the basis of this complaint, by respondent No.6,
that the CSC issued a notice to the petitioner on the same day i.e.
20/03/2024 (pg.115) calling upon the petitioner to show cause by
22/03/2024 at 11:00 a.m. as to why the validity granted in her
favour, ought not to be cancelled. In this show-cause notice dated 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
20/03/2024 (pg.115) itself, the CSC records the rejection of earlier
complaint of a similar nature filed by respondent No.7.
7.12. By communication dated 22/03/2024, the petitioner
raised three preliminary objections (i) the complainant had no locus,
(ii) the CSC has no power of review and (iii) the matter was then 5
pending before the High Court in Writ Petition No.1578/2024 in
which the stay was granted. A demand for supply of the copy of
complaint made by respondent No.6 along with a time of 14 days to
submit a detailed explanation was also sought (pg.120).
7.13. Instead of deciding the preliminary objection, the CSC by 10
the e-mail communication dated 27/03/2024 at 11: 45 p.m.
(pg.134), intimated to the petitioner, the receipt of the Vigilance
Report and asked the petitioner to remain present on 28/03/2024 at
9:45 a.m. (pg.134). This communication is claimed to have been
received by the petitioner on 28/03/2024 at 10:00 a.m. thereby 15
making it impossible for the petitioner to attend.
7.14. Since the petitioner did not appear before the CSC on
28/03/2024, the CSC, by the impugned order, dated 28/03/2024,
declared the earlier validity dated 17/02/2020 issued in favour of
the petitioner, as having been obtained by suppression of material 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
facts, as thus invalid. It is this decision of the CSC which is in
question.
8. A perusal of the above narration of events would indicate
that the preliminary objection regarding absence of power of 5
review/recall, as raised by the petitioner, was never decided by the
CSC.
8.1. In exercise of the power under Section 18 (1) of the Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, a draft Notification of the Rules was published
in the State Gazette, dated 26/12/2001, calling for objections. 10
However, before they could be finalized, the State enacted the
Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003. These Rules, however,
though only addressed the issuance and verification of validities to
the Scheduled Tribes, however, in practice they were used for the 15
purpose of issuance and verification of validities to the Scheduled
Castes and other Category applicants.
8.2. The State, thereafter, has in exercise of the powers under
Section 18 (1) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 published the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012. Since we are here concerned with the claim
of the petitioner belonging to the 'Chamar' Scheduled Caste, it is
these Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, which require consideration. 5
8.3. Rules 17 (11) (i) & (ii) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012
in the present context being material are reproduced as under :
"17 (11) (i) In case of those cases which are refereed to Vigilance
Cell upon considering the 'Report of Vigilance Cell', if the
Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied about the claim of the 10
applicant, it shall call upon the applicant to prove his Caste
claim, by discharging his burden, as contemplated under section
8 of the Act, by issuing a notice in FORM-25 coupled with copy of
'Report of Vigilance Inquiry';
(ii) After issuance of notice/intimation, if applicant requests, by 15
way of written application, for copies of vigilance inquiry report
or any other document or prays for adjournment, reasonable time
for final hearing or for submitting written submission, it may be
granted;
(iii) After affording an opportunity of hearing, Scrutiny 20
Committee shall,----"
The narration of events above, would demonstrate that though Rule
17(11) (i) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 mandates that upon
considering the 'Report of Vigilance Cell', if the CSC is not satisfied
about the claim of the applicant, it shall call upon the applicant to 25
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
prove his caste claim, by discharging his burden, as contemplated
under Section 8 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, by issuing a
notice in FORM-25 coupled with copy of 'Report of Vigilance
Enquiry', which would require a reasonable period of time to be
granted to the applicant, and Sub-Rule (ii), mandates that 5
reasonable time for final hearing or for submitting written
submission consequent to the vigilance enquiry report has to be
granted, however, in view of the admitted position that the e-mail
with the vigilance cell report was issued by the CSC on 27/03/2024
at 11:45 p.m. (pg.134), asking the petitioner to remain present 10
before it on 28/03/2024 at 9:45 a.m. (pg.134), which
communication is claimed to have been received by the petitioner on
28/03/2024 at 10:00 a.m. and the impugned decision is of
28/03/2024 itself, it is apparent that there is an absolute lack of a
reasonable opportunity afforded by the CSC to the petitioner in the 15
matter. The CSC, therefore, has miserably failed in its duty to comply
with the requirement of sub-rule 11(i) & (ii) of Rule 17 of the Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012, on account of which alone, the impugned
decision cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed and set
aside. The requirements of Rule 17 (11) (i) & (ii) of the Caste 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Certificate Rules, 2012, are mandatory, as they direct providing of an
opportunity to the petitioner, to prove her caste claim, in the manner
as provided for in the Rules and denial of this opportunity, would
clearly vitiate all that has been done, in absence thereof.
9. The entire action of the CSC, as is clearly apparent was
not an independent action, as is the necessary mandate of law, but is
an action, which could be said to be clearly motivated by extraneous
considerations, which is apparent from the communication dated
22/03/2024 (pg.128) as addressed by the Under Secretary of the 10
State of Maharashtra, to the CSC, Nagpur. A perusal of this
communication (pg.128) indicates that the Under Secretary, had
issued the communication on the complaint of respondent No.7,
asking the CSC to take action. The Under Secretary, in fact, had no
business to write to the CSC to do anything at all. That apart, it 15
would be material to note that the complaint of respondent No.7,
already stood filed by the CSC vide its decision dated 27/02/2024
(pg.159), by relying upon Section 7(2) of the Caste Certificate Act,
2000. The complaint, by respondent No.6, is dated 20/03/2024
(pg.104). The impugned decision of the CSC (pg.254), dated 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
28/03/2024, indicates that a copy of the same was also directed to
be sent to respondent No.7, whose similar complaint already stood
filed by the CSC on 27/02/2024 (pg.159). The impugned decision,
further indicates that it is the letter of the Under-Secretary dated
22/03/2024, which is the basic reason for the CSC, to reopen the 5
matter, as is indicated from what has been said by the CSC at page 6
of the impugned decision.
9.1. When hundreds of matters for deciding the validity are
pending before the CSC from years together and at times, are not
decided, in spite of the directions by this Court, leading to the filing 10
of contempt petitions against the CSC, it is quite inexplicable as to
what prompted the CSC, to complete the entire exercise of
cancelling the validity granted twice earlier, to the petitioner within
a period of a mere nine (9) days, that too by completing a vigilance
enquiry. The petitioner, by the e-mail dated 27/03/2024 at 11:45 15
p.m. (pg.134), was asked to appear on 28/03/2024 at 9:45 a.m.
which is not even a 24 hours notice. As the petitioner did not appear,
the impugned decision which runs into 15 pages appears to have
been passed by the CSC on the same day. There is no reason
whatsoever, as to why the CSC could not wait for a reasonable 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
period of time, before passing the impugned decision, or for that
matter grant a reasonable notice period.
9.2. It is also material to note that the scrutiny of the
nomination form of the petitioner for the Ramtek Parliamentary
Constituency was fixed on 28/03/2024 (pg.150). Respondent No.7, 5
[not respondent No.6 at whose behest the impugned decision was
taken by the CSC] filed an objection, to the nomination of the
petitioner on the ground that the caste certificate of the petitioner
was invalidated, which was accompanied with a copy of the order
dated 28/03/2024, passed by the CSC. From a perusal of the order 10
dated 28/03/2024, by the Returning Officer, it is apparent that the
objection was raised sometime during the day, and the summary
enquiry was fixed at 5:00 p.m. on the same day. The Research
Officer, CSC was directed to remain present for the enquiry with
certified copy of the decision of the CSC. At 5:00 p.m. the enquiry 15
was conducted, in which the Research Officer of the CSC was
present with the certified copy of the decision of the CSC, based
upon which, the nomination of the petitioner was rejected by the
Returning Officer by his decision dated 28/03/2024. If what Mr.
Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the CSC, 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
had passed the decision at 11:00 a.m. of 28/03/2024, is correct, that
would mean that in spite of the matter being posted on 28/03/2024
at 9:45 a.m. for the appearance of the petitioner, on account of non-
appearance of the petitioner at that time, the CSC claims to have
heard the complainant, the departmental officials and then passed a 5
15 page order, which was typed, corrected and signed and was out
at 11:00 a.m. This would mean that the CSC did not even wait for
the appearance of the petitioner on 28/03/2024 for any reasonable
period of time, during the day itself and proceeded to pass the
impugned decision, copy of which was then supplied to respondent 10
No.7, who on its basis took an objection to the nomination of the
petitioner before the Returning Officer on the same date, who, in
turn relying upon the same, rejected the nomination. All this would
clearly indicate that the entire decision was orchestrated with the
sole intention to get the nomination of the petitioner rejected, which 15
clearly appears to be at the behest of the Under Secretary and
respondent No.7 and therefore, cannot be termed as an independent
decision of the CSC. The above narration would also indicate that
the decision of the CSC, is also not sustainable on this count too.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
10. The need for a vigilance enquiry, realizing the pernicious
practice of false caste certificates being utilized for the purpose of
securing admission to educational institutions and public
employment depriving genuine candidates of the benefits of
reservation, was spelt out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kumari 5
Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development and others (1994) 6 SCC 241 , in which the following
directions were issued :
"13. 1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall
be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy 10
Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be
issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal
level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be,
shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent 15
gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes
and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes
or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails
from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the
Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance
before seeking admission into educational institution or an
appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a committee of three 25
officers, namely, (I) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer
higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (II)
the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class
Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled
Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the 30
verification and issuance of the social status certificates. In the
case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities,
parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a Vigilance Cell consisting of
Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall charge and such
number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status 5
claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and
original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides
or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which
he originally hailed from. The Vigilance Officer should personally
verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the 10
candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He
should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any.
He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in
relation to their caste, etc. or such other persons who have
knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a 15
report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged
in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to
their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity,
rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial of dead bodies, etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal 20
communities concerned, etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the
Vigilance Officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not
genuine" or "doubtful" or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed,
the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying 25
a copy of the report of the Vigilance Officer to the candidate by a
registered post with acknowledgment due or through the head of
the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is
studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the
representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks 30
from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on
request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the
notice. In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing
and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on
receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee 35
and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to
adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by
beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in
the village or locality and if any person or association opposes 40
such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through
counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems
expedient and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised
by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to
be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except
where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to
be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same
procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed. 10
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/
guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the
Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim
for the social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible 15
preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not
exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny
Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should
pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the
same. It should communicate within one month from the date of 20
the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the
parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the
meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational
institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, 25
the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority
competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social
status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the
parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-
official and such admission or appointment should be only 30
provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny
Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and
conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority
should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously
as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its
procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is 40
disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special
leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is
found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be
prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a 5
conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an
offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective
posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any
local body, legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee 10
holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation
and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to
the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority
by registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to
cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal, etc. of 15
the educational institution responsible for making the admission
or the appointing authority, should cancel the
admission/appointment without any further notice to the
candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue
10.1. In Dayaram Vs. Sudhir Batham (2012) 1 SCC 333,
considering a challenge posed to the directions, as contained in
Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development
(supra), it was held the directions were to hold the field till such 25
time an appropriate legislation does not take its place.
"17. The directions issued in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC
241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] were
towards furtherance of the constitutional rights of the
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes. As the rights in favour of 30
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are a part of
legitimate and constitutionally accepted affirmative action, the
directions given by this Court to ensure that only genuine
members of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes were
afforded or extended the benefits, are necessarily inherent to 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
the enforcement of fundamental rights. In giving such
directions, this Court neither rewrote the Constitution nor
resorted to "judicial legislation". The judicial power was
exercised to interpret the Constitution as a "living document"
and enforce fundamental rights in an area where the will of 5
the elected legislatures have not expressed themselves."
10.2. The Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003 were enacted by
the State of Maharashtra for the purpose of more effectively 10
implementing the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the directions as
contained in Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development (supra), and were amended in 2012, which
amendment was brought into force w.e.f. 31/08/2012, which have
been amended from time to time, thereafter too. Consequent to the 15
enactment of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, the matter now, has
to be tested on the anvil of these Rules.
10.3. The question whether in each and every case there is
necessity of a vigilance enquiry, required to be directed is one, to
which the provisions of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, itself, give 20
an answer. The relevant provisions in this regard are Section 6 of the
Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Rules 12, 13, 17 (6), (7), (10) &
(13) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, which, for the sake of
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
ready reference are reproduced below :
"Section 6. Verification of Caste Certificate by Scrutiny Committee.-
(1) The Government shall constitute by notification in the Official
Gazette, one or more Scrutiny Committee(s) for verification of Caste 5
Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under sub-section
(1) of section 4 specifying in the said notification the functions and
the area of jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committee or
Committees.
(2) After obtaining the Caste Certificate from the Competent 10
Authority, any person desirous of availing of the benefits or
concessions provided to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-
notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category for the purposes mentioned in
section 3 may make an application, well in time, in such form and in 15
such manner as may be prescribed, to the concerned Scrutiny
Committee for the verification of such Caste Certificate and issue of a
validity certificate.
(3) The appointing authority of the Central or State Government,
local authority, public sector undertakings, educational institutions, 20
Co-operative Societies or any other Government aided institutions
shall, make an application in such form and in such manner as may
be prescribed by the Scrutiny Committees for the verification of the
Caste Certificate and issue of a validity certificate, in case a person
selected for an appointment with the Government, local authority, 25
public sector undertakings, educational institutions, Co-operative
Societies or any other Government aided institutions who has not
obtain such certificate.
(4) The Scrutiny Committee shall follow such procedure for
verification of the Caste Certificate and adhere to the time limit for 30
verification and grant of validity certificate, as prescribed.
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012
Rule 12. Constitution of Vigilance Cell .--(1) There shall be Vigilance
Cell to assist each Scrutiny Committee in conducting the field inquiry 35
under rule 17. The Vigilance Cell shall consist of,--
(i) Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent;
(ii) Police Inspectors ;
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(iii) Police Constables to assist the Police Inspectors.
(2) -----
(3) Vigilance Cell shall work under the control and supervision of
concerned Caste Scrutiny Committee.
13. Report of Vigilance Cell and Issues to be dealt with -- (l) Vigilance 5
Cell Officer(s) shall submit report upon investigating into the
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or
Special Backward Category claim, referred to it,--
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any provision of these
rules,- -
(a) the Vigilance Cell shall not record concluding remark or opinion,
since vigilance inquiry is meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny
Committee and adjudication of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste 15
converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category status
is exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee;
(b) finding recorded and opinion expressed, if any, by the Vigilance
Officer shall not be binding on Scrutiny Committee nor could be used 20
as evidence, in support of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts
to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,
Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category claim.
17. Procedure of Scrutiny Committee .--(1) On receipt of. application,
the Scrutiny Committee shall ensure that the application and the 25
information supplied therewith is complete in all respects and to carry
out scrutiny of the application.
(2) to (4)
(5) The Roznama of the Scrutiny committee shall be self evident as to
what transpired on a particular day and it shall be signed by all the 30
members of the Scrutiny Committee.
(6) If Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the statement of
applicant or claimant submitted in the form of Affidavit filed in
consonance with Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, as well as other evidence and documents furnished along with 35
any application or proposal is satisfied, about the genuineness of
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste converts to Buddhism or
De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) or Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category claim the Scrutiny Committee
shall forthwith issue Validity Certificate in FORM-20 without enquiry
(7) If Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the statement of
applicant or claimant submitted in the form of Affidavit filed in
consonance with Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, as well as other evidence and documents furnished along with
any application or proposal , is of the opinion that the documents do 10
not satisfy or conclusively prove the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Caste
converts to Buddhism, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category claim,
the Scrutiny Committee by mentioning the same in the Roznama,
shall refer such case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying out suitable 15
inquiry, as is deemed fit, by the Scrutiny Committee:
Provided that, finding recorded by the Vigilance Cell shall not
be binding on the Scrutiny Committee, as the vigilance inquiry is
meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny
Committee shall record its reasons for discarding the report of 20
Vigilance Cell.
(8) to (12)........
(13) If the Scrutiny Committee finds and concludes that the report of
Vigilance Cell is false or unrealistic, it shall record the reason in
decision and direct appropriate action as contemplated under section 25
14, read with section 11 and 12 of the Act and also recommend
Departmental inquiry against such Vigilance Officer:
Provided that, an opportunity of being heard be granted to the
concerned Vigilance Cell Officer prior to any direction for appropriate
action. This hearing shall be independent to adjudication of Caste or 30
Tribe claim."
Section 6 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, constitutes the CSC, and
empowers it to verify the certificate issued by the Competent
Authority and issue a validity as regards the same. Sub-section 4 of 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Section 6 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, directs that the CSC
shall follow such procedure for verification of the caste certificate, as
may be prescribed.
10.4. The Vigilance Cell is constituted under Rule 12, sub-rule 1
of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, which mandates that its 5
constitution is to assist the CSC, and sub-rule 3 of which mandates
that it shall work under the control and supervision of the CSC. Sub-
rule 2 (a) of Rule 13 mandates that the Vigilance Cell shall not
record concluding remark or opinion, since the vigilance enquiry is
meant for internal assistance to the CSC and adjudication of the 10
category status is the exclusive domain of the CSC, which is also
indicated in the proviso to Rule 11(7). Sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 13
further mandates that the finding recorded and opinion expressed, if
any, [as sub-rule 2(a) prohibits the Vigilance Cell to do so,] shall not
be binding upon the CSC nor could be used as evidence in support of 15
category claim.
10.5. It is Rule 17 sub-rules 6 and 7 of the Caste Certificate
Rules, 2012, which specifically deal with the position in this regard.
A perusal of Rule 17(6) would indicate that if on appreciating the
statement of the applicant/claimant as submitted in the relevant 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Form on affidavit, as well as other evidence and documents, the CSC
is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim, it shall forthwith
issue validity certificate in Form-20, without enquiry by the
vigilance. This would categorically point out that the vigilance
enquiry is not mandatory, for the issuance of a validity certificate. 5
Once the CSC is satisfied about the genuineness of the claim on the
basis of documents placed before it, then in terms of the mandate of
Rule 17(6), it has to issue a validity certificate.
10.6. The requirement of directing a vigilance enquiry, arises
only when the CSC is not satisfied about the genuineness of the 10
claim made by the applicant/claimant on the basis of the application
and documents submitted along with it, as is the mandate of Rule
17(7) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012. It is, therefore, expected
that the CSC, before it directs a vigilance enquiry, would record short
reasons, as to why, it feels that a vigilance enquiry is necessary and 15
then only direct one. The reasons for directing a Vigilance Cell
enquiry have to be recorded in the Roznama, by mentioning the
same, therein, as is the requirement of sub-rule 7 of Rule 17(7).
10.7. It is, thus, apparent that under the Caste Certificate Rules,
2012, the directing of a Vigilance Cell enquiry is not mandatory and 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
it is only when the CSC is not satisfied with the caste/tribe claim of
an applicant on the basis of information contained in his application
and documents submitted in support of the claim, that for short
reasons to be recorded in the Roznama, a vigilance enquiry can be
10.8. The position that a vigilance enquiry is not mandatory or
necessary in each and every case, has been laid down in a catena of
judgments, and is illustrated by Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC),
wherein it has been held as under :
28. The second part of the challenge relates to the requirement
of verification of the certificates by the Vigilance Cell. This was
provided to be mandatory, in terms of the judgment in Madhuri
Patil case [Madhuri Patil v. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994)
6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349] . The enormity of the 15
problems faced by the High Court, through multifarious
petitions arising qua the unverified issuance of such certificates,
possibly persuaded the High Court to lay down stricter norms in
this behalf. However, as implemented for the interregnum
period in question, the input from the Vigilance Cell was 20
obtained only selectively. Under the 2012 Rules also, the
requirement is not mandatory, but wherever the Scrutiny
Committee feels it "may" solicit a report of vigilance inquiry. We
have, however, no hesitation to emphasise the importance of
proper verification of such certificates to be issued, and the 25
exercise of issuance of the certificates cannot be a casual one.
The Scrutiny Committee constituted to issue the validity
certificates must, thus, at the slightest doubt take the assistance
of the Vigilance Cell to ensure that non-entitled persons do not
get benefitted at the cost of entitled persons. We have no doubt 30
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
that this is a process which will be so followed under the 2012
Rules."
In Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. The
State of Maharashtra and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 326 the
"19. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 clearly provides that only if the
Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documentary
evidence produced by the applicant, it shall forward the
application to the Vigilance Cell for conducting the school,
home and other enquiry. Therefore, in every case, as a matter of 10
routine, the Scrutiny Committee cannot mechanically forward
the application to Vigilance Cell for conducting an enquiry.
When sub-rule (2) of Rule 12 contemplates that only if the
Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied with the documents
produced by the applicant that the case should be referred to 15
Vigilance Cell, it follows that the Scrutiny Committee is required
to pass an order recording brief reasons why it is not satisfied
with the documents produced by the applicant. Before referring
the case to the Vigilance Cell, application of mind to the
material produced by the applicant is required and therefore, 20
the application of mind must be reflected in the order sheets of
the Scrutiny Committee."
This has been followed in Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles @
Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana (supra) wherein it has been held as under :
"12. A combined reading of the Sections of 2000 Act and Rules 25
of 2012 Rules, makes it clear that a detailed procedure has
been prescribed for the Scrutiny Committee to deal with the
claim of an applicant seeking validation of caste certificate
issued by the Competent Authority. The power to deal with
such verification has been specifically vested with Scrutiny 30
Committee and it falls within the exclusive domain of it in view
of Rule 13(b) of 2012 Rules. For the purposes of verification,
the Scrutiny Committee has all the powers of Civil Court while
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
trying a civil suit and it can further take internal assistance of
Vigilance Cell for verification in those cases as and when
needed by the Committee. It is pertinent here to note that, as
per Rule 13(2)(b), the findings recorded, and opinion
expressed by the Vigilance Cell shall not be binding on Scrutiny 5
Committee and nor could be used in evidence for the purpose
of claim. Further, Rule 17(6) provides that if the Scrutiny
Committee upon appreciation of statement of applicant in
prescribed format as well as other evidence and documents
furnished along with it, is satisfied about the genuineness of 10
same, then it shall forthwith issue the validity certificate in
FORM-20 without enquiry by Vigilance Cell. In other words, the
said Rule provides for subjective satisfaction of the Scrutiny
Committee when a claim is made and does not mandate
verification in each case by the Vigilance Cell. At this juncture, 15
Section 7(2) of the 2000 Act also assumes significance. It
fortifies the exclusive domain of Scrutiny Committee and deals
with the finality of the orders passed by Scrutiny Committee
under the 2000 Act stating that the orders passed by Scrutiny
Committee shall be final and it shall not be open to challenge 20
before any authority or Court except High Court under Article
226 of Constitution of India. The said language used in sub
clause (2) clearly reflects the intention of legislature to ensure
minimal interference with the orders of Scrutiny Committee."
Thus, the view that in all cases there has to be a vigilance enquiry, is 25
clearly not tenable and the CSC, if satisfied upon the basis of the
documents placed before it, as to the caste claim of the applicant,
can straightaway proceed to issue a validity.
11. The judgment in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-HC), 30
needs a closer scrutiny to understand under what circumstances it
was passed. The learned Division Bench in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(supra-HC) was considering three sets of petitions in the background
of advent of elections to Local self-Government in the State in
February, 2012. As the need for having validity certificates under the
Caste Certificate Act, 2000, was felt urgently, CSCs were constituted
under the notification dated 30/07/2011, which Committees had 5
issued validity certificates. The notification dated 30/07/2011 was
questioned in several petitions. The first set of the petitions was of
those petitioners, who intended to participate in the ensuing
elections of the Local Government, even though they did not have
caste validity certificates, and prayed for relaxation of the condition 10
to produce validity certificate at the time of scrutiny. The second set
of petitions related to those petitioners, whose caste certificates were
invalidated by the CSCs and they sought to challenge the said
decisions coupled with a direction to the Returning Officer to allow
them to participate in the ensuing election. The third set of petitions 15
related to those petitioners, who had challenged the caste validity
certificates granted to the respondents on the ground that the said
certificates were obtained by fraud with further prayer that the
Election Commission should reject the nomination papers of such
candidates. The learned Division Bench, upon enquiring with the 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Assistant Government Pleader as to how validity certificates were
issued in such a summary manner, without calling for the vigilance
cell report, was informed that the CSCs specially constituted for the
purpose of elections in past few months had granted several such
validity certificates to thousands of persons without any enquiry at 5
all, whereupon it came to the conclusion that such candidates may
contest the elections on the basis of validity certificates issued in
summary manner, and further the validity certificates so obtained
could be used by the candidates for all other purposes as well and so
also the relatives of each of such candidates could use them as 10
evidence in furtherance of their claim of entitlement to the benefit of
reservation policy, considering which, the following directions were
issued :
"55. In the result we direct as under:
(i) The Government Resolution dated 30-7-2011 is quashed and 15
set aside.
(ii) It is declared that the composition of the scrutiny committees
constituted by the State of Maharashtra by the Government
Resolution dated 30-7-2011 is not backed by law and is contrary
to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil v. 20
Commr., Tribal Development, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 437 and
the validity certificates issued by such committees will have no
force of law and are void ab initio.
(iii) It is declared that the validity certificates issued by the
Scrutiny Committees without calling for the report from vigilance 25
cell, being a mandatory requirement of law, cannot be considered
as valid in the eyes of law and suffer from jurisdictional error
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
which goes to the root.
(iv) We direct the State Government to ensure that all the original
certificates issued by the specially constituted Scrutiny Committees
under the Government Resolution dated 30-7-2011, are recovered 5
from the respective persons and are destroyed forthwith. This shall
be done within three months from today."
The judgment in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-HC) was
pronounced on 04/05/2012, and operation of the directions 10
contained in paragraph No.55 of the judgment, as quoted above,
was stayed for a period of ten weeks from the date of the judgment
by the Bench which delivered it. What is necessary to note is that
Special Leave Petitions were filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court,
against the aforesaid judgment being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) 15
No(s).16728/2012 Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra) in which while
issuing notice on 03/07/2012, the stay granted by the High Court of
its own judgment was continued. The stay was continued, even after
leave was granted in Civil Appeal No.2723 of 2015, till its decision
on 01/10/2019. This would make it apparent that the directions as 20
contained in para 55 of Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-HC), never
came into effect in view of the stay granted by the Court, which
passed it and thereafter too, the stay having been continued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC).
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
11.1. What is also necessary to consider is that the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the challenge to Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-H C),
noted the following position regarding the issuance of the validity
certificates by different CSC as culled out by the learned Division
Bench in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-HC) : 5
PRAPATRA --
NECESSARY INFORMATION RELATING TO WRIT PETITION NO.853/2012 IN THE
HIGH COURT, BOMBAY.
Sr. Name Total Validi Validity Number Numb The The The
No. of the number ty certifi- of candi- er of validity validity validity
Commi of certifi cates dates validit certifi- certifi- certifi-
ttee/Di validity -cates not contes- y cates in cates in cates
strict certifi- verifi verified ting the certifi- which which in
cates ed by by the election cates decision decisio which
issued the Vigil- to whom stamp is given n is decisio
relating Vigil- ance validity ed in one given in n is
to ance Cell certifi- only day two given
election Cell cates are for days in
issued electio three
n or
purpo more
se days
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
***
Total 36929 1427 35505 7664 4359 388 290 36251
Mahar-
ashtra
This is what has been held in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC) in
that regard :
"17. The aforesaid judgment was assailed in this batch of
appeals before us, and the operation of the impugned judgment
was stayed vide order dated 30.7.2012. The result has been that 10
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
these certificates, issued under the aforesaid circular, have
continued to hold the field and the process followed has been as
per the Act of 2000, read with the Rules of 2003.
20. In the course of hearing these appeals, what undisputedly
emerged was that the window of period with which we are 5
concerned is between the Notification being issued on
30.7.2011 and the Rules being notified on 31.8.2012. The Rules
have not been challenged by any one, and hold the field. Thus,
we are not really required to go into what had happened before
the Notification came in, or after the Rules came in. We may 10
also note that the challenge before us is in respect of only the
certificates issued for the purposes of local self-body elections,
as nobody from any other category has approached the Court.
Thus, as to whether the Rules of 2003, applicable to the ST
category, should have been applied to all the categories on an 15
'analogous' principle, does not require our adjudication. Neither
the certificates issued post the notification of the Rules of 2012
require our adjudication. It is only the interregnum period that
we are concerned with. However, to deal with this interim
period, certain broader principles have to be discussed. 20
22. We may also note that there were three kinds of writ
petitions filed before the High Court. The first set of writ
petitioners were those who intended to participate in the
ensuing elections of local Government, even though they did
not, at that stage, have a caste validity certificate. The prayer 25
was for relaxation of the condition to produce the caste validity
certificate at the time of scrutiny, which had been made
mandatory (though that certificate once issued was to remain
valid for all purposes). The second set of writ petitioners were
those whose caste certificates were invalidated by the Scrutiny 30
Committees, and they sought to challenge the decision with a
direction to the Returning Officer to allow them to participate in
the ensuing elections. The third set of petitioners were those
who challenged the Caste Validity Certificates granted to the
candidates who were party respondents in both petitions, on the 35
ground that the said certificates were obtained by fraud, with a
prayer for direction to the Election Commission to reject the
nomination papers of such candidates. The impugned judgment
has been rendered in the context of the third set of petitioners.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
The certificates in question were alleged to have been obtained
without vigilance reports and within a very short period of time,
as would be apparent from the chart aforesaid.
23.----------. The challenge before us is not based on any of these
parameters, but is simply on the ground that the notification is 5
not in exact conformity with the directions issued by this Court
in the Kumari Madhuri Patil2 case. Such a challenge would not
be sustainable in view of the settled principles of examining
such subordinate legislation/statutory notifications. Thus, once
the legislature lays down a legislative policy, and confers 10
discretion upon the administrative agency for the execution of
such policy, it is up to the agency to work out the details within
the framework of the policy."
So far as the requirement of the vigilance cell report, it opined in
para 27 (para 28 of SCC) already quoted above, that under the Caste 15
Certificate Rules, 2012 also, the requirement was not mandatory, but
wherever the Scrutiny Committee felt, it "may" solicit a report of
vigilance enquiry but expressed that it had no hesitation to
emphasize the importance of proper verification of such certificates
to be issued, and that the exercise of issuance of the certificates 20
cannot be a casual one. It expressed concern about the time-frame
within which the validities were issued by the CSC and held as
under :
"29. The matter, however, cannot rest at this because the
existence of power and its exercise are two different aspects. 25
The view adopted by the High Court, appears to us, to have
been in the context of the manner of exercise carried out by the
Scrutiny Committee in the given situation, and the casual
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
manner in which the assistance of Vigilance Cell was sought (or
rather not sought). On those aspects, we are in complete
agreement with the view of the High Court. The exercise carried
out in the interregnum period, between 30-7-2011 (when the
notification was issued) and 31-8-2012 (when the 2012 Rules 5
were notified) leaves us, as the High Court, with grave doubt,
and we are of the view that no proper exercise could have been
carried out, or was carried out given the time-frame within
which the caste certificates were issued. The objective was clear
i.e. to somehow facilitate as many people as possible, as soon as 10
possible, to contest the elections.
30. The troublesome aspect is that the validity certificates are
not only valid for that election, but also for subsequent
elections. They are not only valid for educational purposes
(except for some cases so restricted), but also for all other 15
purposes. These validity certificates can possibly become the
basis for issuance of further certificates to the legal heirs. Thus,
we have no doubt that the exercise so undertaken cannot be
upheld and has to be quashed with the direction to carry out the
31. The further development, by the enactment of the 2012
Rules is that the said mechanism is now available within the
enacted Rules, itself. Even the contesting respondents could not
seriously dispute that the proper methodology, now, would be
for a fresh verification exercise to be carried out under the 2012 25
Rules. The learned counsel for the State Government could also
not seriously dispute this exercise to be undertaken under the
2012 Rules, but only expressed concerns about the certificates
already having been issued and the complication which would
be created by forthwith withdrawal of those certificates. 30
32. We do appreciate the problem aforesaid and are, thus, of the
view that the fresh exercise has to be undertaken within a
period of six (6) months from today i.e. on or before 31-3-2020.
Till this exercise is completed, the existing certificates issued for
the interregnum period would hold good. The exercise would 35
have to be undertaken in respect of all the certificates, except
those cases where the validity certificate was issued after
verification by the Vigilance Cell. We may, however, hasten to
add that, in view of the case pointed out to us, where the
Vigilance Cell opined otherwise and yet a caste validity 40
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
certificate has been issued, the exercise may be carried out
afresh. Thus, wherever there is an adverse report of the
Vigilance Cell and yet caste validity certificate has been issued
the exercise has to be carried out afresh. It may be added that
those, whose caste certificates were rejected by the Caste 5
Scrutiny Committee, without any vigilance inquiry, may be given
the right to appeal against such rejection, as per Rule 7 of the
2012 Rules.
34. We are conscious of the aforesaid fact. However, it is
impractical to have all the affected parties before us. Different 10
groups in representative capacities are before us. In terms of the
impugned order [Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid v. District Collector,
2012 SCC OnLine Bom 690 : (2012) 5 Mah LJ 473], all the
original certificates issued by the specially constituted Scrutiny
Committees under the Government Resolution dated 30-7-2011 15
were to be recovered from the respective persons and were to be
destroyed forthwith for which three months' time was granted.
We have, in fact while setting aside the impugned order
[Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid v. District Collector, 2012 SCC OnLine
Bom 690 : (2012) 5 Mah LJ 473] on the question of law, 20
directed only reverification of the certificates as to whether they
are in accordance with law on account of the doubts cast over
them, as per what we have set out aforesaid. The stand of the
aggrieved parties by the impugned judgment was, in fact,
represented by the appellant before us. Moreover, at the time of 25
the fresh exercise of the validity certificate being issued,
naturally the persons who have been issued these certificates
would be issued notice. In our view that would suffice and the
aforesaid directions are also necessary to do complete justice
inter se the parties, for which we have the benefit of Article 142 30
of the Constitution. It will be for the Caste Scrutiny Committee
to carry out the aforesaid exercise, while notifying the parties
concerned, through appropriate public notices in this behalf.
Directions we have now issued would ensure the objectives of
the 2000 Act i.e. issuance of certificates only to entitled persons, 35
through a proper exercise, with proper assistance from the
Vigilance Cell."
Thus, though Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC) set aside the
judgment of the learned Division Bench in Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(supra-HC), it has expressed its agreement with the finding of the
Division Bench, about the manner in which the validities were issued
and thus it has also issued directions to carry out the exercise of
issuance of the validity certificates afresh within a period of six
What Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC) records is that
the issuance of the validity has to be in consonance with the
provisions of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, and in case it is felt
by the CSC upon a consideration of the documents submitted to it,
direct a vigilance cell enquiry. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC) 10
was decided on 01/10/2019, consequent to which, validity was
granted by the CSC to the petitioner on 17/02/2020 (pg.165).
12. It is necessary to note what has been recorded in the
certificate dated 20/01/2012, by which a validity certificate was 15
issued to the petitioner :
"GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
Social Justice and Special Assistance Department
CERTIFICATE OF CASTE VALIDITY
Read : (1) Maharashtra SC, ST, DT (VJ), NT, OBC and SBC 20
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
Certification Act, 2000 (Ac No.XXIII of 2001)
(2) Government of Maharashtra social Justice
Special Assistance Department GR
No.CBC-12/2010/CR. 193/Mavak-s,Dated 14/5/2010 25
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(3) TAHSILDAR Parseoni
DISTRICT CASTE VERIFICATION COMMITTEE Nagpur District
Nagpur (MAHARASHTRA)
Committee Decision No./CVN/ELE/1678/11 Dated 20 JAN 2012
WHEREAS, an application dated __________From
Shri/Smt./Kumari REENA SOMRAJ SONEKAR r/o KHARSOLI
Taluka________District NAGPUR along with the documents was
received by the Committee for verification of Caste Certificate of 10
Scheduled Castes/Vimukta Jati-A/Nomadic Tribe/B/C/D/ Other
Backward Class/Special Backward Class and the same was placed
before the said committee in the meeting held on 19 JAN 2012
AND WHEREAS, in accordance with the powers conferred on it
under the Act mentioned in above preamble the committee has, on 15
the basis of the documents produced before it, verified and
scrutinized the said caste certificate/claim.
NOW, THEREFORE, the committee hereby certifies that the caste
claim is found to be correct and the Caste Certificate bearing
No.369/MRC-81/2007-08 Dated 12/12/2007 issued by the 20
Executive Magistrate/Dy. Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer KATOL
District NAGPUR certifying that Shri/Smt./Kumari REENA
SOMRAJ SONEKAR r/o KHARSOLI district NAGPUR Belongs to
CHAMBHAR is found to be VALID.
Member-Secretary
District Caste Verification Committee
Nagpur District Nagpur"
12.1. The second validity certificate dated 17/02/2020 (pg.165), 30
records the following position :
"GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
Social Justice and Special Assistance Department
CERTIFICATE OF VALIDITY
No. A 2371711
CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Committee Decision No. SC/ELE/368/2019, dated 17.02.2020
WHEREAS, an application of Reena Somraj Sonekar dated
10.12.2019 along with the documents was received by the
Scrutiny Committee for verification of Caste Certificate of 5
Scheduled Caste and the same was placed before the said
Committee in the meeting held on 14.02.2020.
AND WHEREAS in accordance with the powers conferred
on it under Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes,
De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other 10
Backward Class and Special Backward Category (Regulation of
Issuance and Verification of) Castes Certificate Act, 2000 (Mah.
XXIII of 2001); Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Class and
Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and 15
Verification of) Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, the Committee on
the basis of the documents and evidence produced before it
verified and scrutinised the said Caste Certificate/Claim.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Committee hereby certifies that 20
caste claim is found to be correct and the caste certificate bearing
No.369/MRC-81/2007-2008 dated 12.12.2007 issued by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Katol District Nagpur certifying that Reena
Somraj Sonekar belongs to Chambhar (11) Caste/Tribe is found to
(R. D. Atram)
Member
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.
District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur"
12.2. The above would clearly indicate that two CSCs, were
satisfied with the genuineness of the claim as made by the petitioner, 35
of belonging to the 'Chambhar', Scheduled Caste, on the basis of the
application and documents filed along with it.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
12.3. In fact, it is also material to note that the second
certificate dated 17/02/2020 (pg.165) was given to the petitioner,
consequent to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid (supra-SC), which came to be
12.4. Thus if, even after the judgment in Mangesh Nivrutti
Kashid (supra-SC), the CSC finds the claim of the petitioner to be
genuine, then there was no reason whatsoever, that the matter was
required to be reopened. The CSC is a Statutory Body created under
Section 6 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, and performs quasi- 10
judicial functions of verifying the caste/tribe claim made by an
applicant and then grants validity, which is accepted by all
Government Departments/Educational Institutions and thus has a
great responsibility to act in a fair, reasonable and independent
13. What is also necessary to consider is that on the complaint
filed by respondent No.7, with the CSC, regarding the validity
granted to the petitioner, on a similar set of allegations, that the
validity granted to the petitioner was on the basis of false and 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
fabricated documents, the CSC, by its order dated 27/02/2024
(pg. 159) had found that the validity granted on 17/02/2020, by the
then CSC was in pursuance to the directions as issued by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2723/2015 [Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid
(supra-SC)] and therefore, any challenge to the same was not 5
tenable before the CSC and ought to be raised before this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no reason as
to why the same course of action was not followed in respect of the
complaint filed by respondent No.6. The impugned order in this
context is totally silent and does not assign any reason as to why a 10
similar course of action could not have been taken by it in respect of
the complaint by respondent No.6. This would clearly indicate the
double standards being adopted by the CSC in dealing with identical
complaints before it. The entire conduct of the CSC is clearly
deprecating and we do so record it to be so and such conduct cannot 15
be countenanced in law.
REVIEW
14. Review, is a power conferred to rectify an error of fact or
law apparent on the face of the record. If a judgment or order has
been rendered on an erroneous assumption, in ignorance of an 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
essential fact or piece of evidence and its perpetuation would result
in a miscarriage of justice, the Courts and quasi-judicial authorities
would be bound to correct and rectify that decision or order. The
mistake or error must be established to be glaring, patent,
substantial and of a compelling character. The mistake must be 5
found to be one that goes to the very root and foundation of the
judgment or order sought to be reviewed. There cannot be two
opinions with the proposition that the power of review is a creature
of the Statute and if the concerned Statute, does not confer any such
power upon an authority exercising jurisdiction, then such power of 10
review cannot be held to be available to such authority. There is no
inherent power of review. This is amply illustrated by what has been
held in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji
Arjunsinghji, 1971 (3) SCC 844, which holds that that the power to
review is not an inherent power, it must be conferred by law either 15
specifically or by necessary implication [see : Shri Ram Sahu (Dead)
Through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat
and others, (2021) 13 SCC 1 ; Lily Thomas and others Vs. Union of
India and others, (2000) 6 SCC 224 and Araine Orgachem Pvt. Ltd.,
Mumbai and others Vs. Wyeth Employees Union, Mumbai and 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 15945]. No review is available upon
a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a Superior Court or
by a Larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of
law whereon the judgment/order under review was based [see :
Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary, Land and 5
Building Department and Another Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and
Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1090].
14.1. The power of review permits of being construed in two
senses : (1) Procedural Review and (2) Substantial Review or
14.2. Procedural law is the law establishing the rules of the
Courts of law, setting forth the steps that must be followed to
prosecute or defend a case. Procedural laws sets forth the manner
and methods by which a substantive right under the law is to be
enforced in the Court of law. While most substantive law is set out in 15
statutes, procedural laws are usually set out in Rules, like the Rules
of Civil Procedure, or the Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Evidence
Act etc., which govern the procedure to be followed in Courts for the
enforcement of the substantial law, and in the present case the Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012. Not all violation of procedural can give rise 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
to a plea for procedural review. Procedural review would be
permissible only in cases where it is prima facie demonstrable that a
procedure which materially affects the rights of a party to effective
prosecution or defence has been bypassed or not followed which
causes prejudice to the party. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Sudhir 5
Kumar Singh and others, (2021) 19 SCC 706 it has been held that
mere violation of the principles of natural justice may not be
enough, but prejudice which materially affect the right of a party,
adversely has to be demonstrated. Examples of procedural review
could be (a) matter proceeding in spite of non-service of notice upon 10
a party; (b) non-posting the matter for evidence of a party, which
deprives it of the opportunity of leading evidence [in cases where
leading of evidence is statutorily permissible] and (c) not affording
an opportunity to a party which is statutorily mandated, etc.
14.3. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs. Central 15
Government Industrial Tribunal and others, 1980 (supp) SCC 420, in
this context has held as under :
"The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely
(1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a
court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed 20
under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits
when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is
apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
the Court in Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on
merits unless a statute specifically provides for it. Obviously
when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the
inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected
ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and such 5
power inheres in every court or Tribunal. {Para 13}."
14.4. What is meant by a procedural review has been very
lucidly explained in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union Vs. Birla Cotton
Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and another (2005) 13 SCC 777 by
"19. Applying these principles it is apparent that where a court
or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate on
merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order can be reviewed
on merit only if the court or the quasi-judicial authority is
vested with power of review by express provision or by 15
necessary implication. The procedural review belongs to a
different category. In such a review, the court or quasi-judicial
authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate proceeds to do so,
but in doing so commits (sic ascertains whether it has
committed) a procedural illegality which goes to the root of 20
the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and
consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision
is rendered by the court or quasi-judicial authority without
notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression
that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or 25
where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date
other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative
cases in which the power of procedural review may be
invoked. In such a case the party seeking review or recall of the
order does not have to substantiate the ground that the order 30
passed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record
or any other ground which may justify a review. He has to
establish that the procedure followed by the court or the quasi-
judicial authority suffered from such illegality that it vitiated
the proceeding and invalidated the order made therein, 35
inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a
date other than the one fixed for hearing of the matter which
he could not attend for no fault of his. In such cases, therefore,
the matter has to be reheard in accordance with law without
going into the merit of the order passed. The order passed is 5
liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be
erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which
was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which
went to the root of the matter and invalidated the entire
proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial 10
Tribunal [1980 Supp SCC 420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309] it was
held that once it is established that the respondents were
prevented from appearing at the hearing due to sufficient
cause, it followed that the matter must be reheard and decided
Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) also explains that a substantial
review or a review on merits, means that a judgment rendered on
merits by a judicial or quasi-judicial Court/authority is sought to be
corrected on merits. This would mean a review based upon the
principles, as contained in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Thus, whereas a 20
procedural review is not concerned with the merits of the decision, a
substantial review is only concerned with the merits of the decision.
14.5. In Abhijit Suryakant Thakar (supra) it has been held
that the CSC has no power of review.
14.6. The only repository of power in the CSC is Section 6 of the 25
Caste Certificate Act, 2000 under which it can validate the caste/
tribe certificate issued by the Competent Authority in favour of a
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
person; Section 7(1) under which it can confiscate and cancel such
'caste certificate' issued by the 'Competent Authority' and Section 10
empowering it to withdraw benefits received by a person, whose
caste certificate has been cancelled. There is no other power vested
in the CSC in the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, other than the above. 5
14.7. Section 7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, reads as
under :
"7. Confiscation and cancellation of false Caste Certificate.-
(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a
person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, 10
Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic
Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category
has obtained a false Caste Certificate to the effect that either
himself or his children belong to such Castes, Tribes or Classes,
the Scrutiny Committee may, suo motu, or otherwise call for 15
the record and enquire into the correctness of such certificate
and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained
fraudulently, it shall, by an order, cancel and confiscate the
certificate by following such procedure as prescribed, after
giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, 20
and communicate the same to the concerned person and the
concerned authority, if any.
(2) The order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under this Act
shall be final and shall not be challenged before any authority
or court except the High Court under Article 226 of the 25
Constitution of India."
A perusal of Section 7(1) would therefore indicate that the power to
confiscate and cancel, conferred upon the CSC, is in respect of a
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
'caste certificate', which could only mean the 'caste certificate' as
defined in Section 2(a) as issued under Section 4(1) by the
'Competent Authority' as defined in Section 2(b), and cannot be
inferred to be in respect of a validity issued by the CSC in respect of
a Caste/Tribe Certificate, as the CSC while validating a 'caste/tribe 5
certificate', does not issue the same but tests it's genuineness on the
basis of documents placed before it, in support of the claim and
upon being satisfied holds that the certificate issued by the
Competent Authority is valid. In case the CSC is not satisfied about
the genuineness of the certificate on the basis of documents placed 10
before it, then it will have to record short reasons for not doing so,
and then refer the matter to the Vigilance Cell for an enquiry and
depending upon the report of the enquiry made, if it accepts it, hold
the certificate to be genuine and thus grant a validity, and in case it
does not accept the enquiry report, for the reasons to be recorded, 15
pass such orders as it may deem fit, including declining to grant
validity to the certificate issued by the Competent Authority. Thus,
Section 7(1) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, cannot be held to
empower the CSC to confiscate and cancel a caste certificate
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
validated by the CSC in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 6 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
14.8. Section 10 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 when it
speaks about withdrawal of benefits, also speaks so in reference to a
person producing a false 'Caste Certificate', which has been 5
cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee. This is also what is indicated
by Sections 11 and 13 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, when they
provide for offences and penalties, which also are in relation to
obtaining a false 'Caste Certificate' by furnishing false information or
filing false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent 10
means and do not relate to a validity having been issued by the CSC.
14.9. Thus, Section 7(1) and Section 10 of the Caste Certificate
Act, 2000, cannot be held to empower the CSC to confiscate and
cancel a caste certificate validated by the CSC in exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 6 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000. 15
14.10. This being the position as spelt out from the provisions
of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, then the power of review being a
creature of Statute, cannot be inferred to have been conferred upon
the CSC, in absence of any provision in that regard in the Statute
and since there is no such provision in the Caste Certificate Act, 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
2000, the CSC will have to be held not to possess any power of
review.
RECALL
15. That takes us to the ubiquitous plea that the CSC or for
that matter every Court, quasi-judicial body or any body exercising 5
judicial function, has a power of recall in case of a fraud being
practiced upon it in the matter of invoking its jurisdiction and having
impressed upon it to have passed an order based upon such fraud.
15.1. Fraud, is an anathema to the rule of law and vitiates
everything [see : S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. 10
Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. and others (1994)1 SCC 1 and Satluj Jal
Vidyut Nigam Vs. Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh (Dead) through Legal
Representatives and others (2019) 14 SCC 449] and a person
having obtained any benefit by having practiced fraud, cannot be
15.2. When a fraud is practiced upon the Court or a body
exercising quasi-judicial power, it is mislead into passing the order
on account of the fraud practiced upon it.
15.3. 'Ex debito justitiae', is a Latin term, which means 'from or
as a debt of justice' and is an obligation of justice as a matter of 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
right, and means, that no one should suffer because of mistakes of
Courts. This principle would equally be applicable to judicial/quasi-
judicial bodies/authorities for the reason that they are also equally
enjoined with the delivery of justice, where they are so empowered
under the Statute by which they have been created. This has been 5
recognized in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and another
(2002) 4 SCC 388, wherein in the context of entertaining a curative
petition, the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the principle,
culled out the parameters, in which the same could be exercised in
"51. Nevertheless, we think that a petitioner is entitled to
relief ex debito justitiae if he establishes (1) violation of the
principles of natural justice in that he was not a party to the lis
but the judgment adversely affected his interests or, if he was
a party to the lis, he was not served with notice of the 15
proceedings and the matter proceeded as if he had notice, and
(2) where in the proceedings a learned Judge failed to disclose
his connection with the subject-matter or the parties giving
scope for an apprehension of bias and the judgment adversely
The principle has been considered recently in Government of NCT of
Delhi through its Secretary, Land and Building Department and
Another Vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine
SC 1090, by considering A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another,
(1988) 2 SCC 602 which has been explained in the following words : 25
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
"94. A superior court, in exercise of its inherent power, is
authorized to do such justice that the cause before it demands.
Upon satisfaction being reached by a court that a mistake has
been committed by it, which is gross and palpable, it is not the
law that the mistake has to be corrected by exercising the power 5
of review only. Such power can be exercised, only if the person
aggrieved by the order or decree applies therefor. On its terms,
section 114 of the CPC read with Order XLVII thereof does not
conceive of a suo motu power of review being exercised by the
court. The words "court on its own motion" are absent in the 10
statutory provision. However, once the court is satisfied that a
mistake committed by it needs to be rectified, it is always open to
exercise the inherent powers to achieve the desired result. As has
been held by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay v. R.S.
Nayak45, an order of court - be it judicial or administrative - which 15
is made per incuriam or in violation of certain Constitutional
limitations or in derogation of principles of natural justice can
always be remedied by the court ex debito justitiae. It can do so in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in any proceeding pending
before it without insisting on the formalities of a review 20
application. After all, "to err is human" is the oft-quoted saying
and courts including the apex court are no exception. To own up
the mistake when judicial satisfaction is reached does not militate
against its status or authority; perhaps, it would enhance both. On
the other hand, when it involves invocation of the power of 25
review and such power is traceable in a statute, which also has
provisions regulating the exercise of the review power, it has to be
held that the power of review is not an inherent power. That
power of review is not an inherent power has been held in Patel
Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji46. If a power of 30
review is statutorily conferred, it would be inappropriate, nay
incompetent, for the court exercising review power to travel
beyond the contours of the provision conferring the very power. A
statutorily conferred power to review is not to be confused with
the inherent power of the court to recall any order. The said 35
power inheres in every court to prevent miscarriage of justice or
when a fraud has been committed on court or to correct grave
and palpable errors."
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Thus, every Court or quasi-judicial authority, will have to be held to
possess, the power to correct its own mistake, which has led to the
passing of the decision, if it is satisfied that the decision is rendered
upon such mistake, as the same cannot be permitted to prejudice the
rights of a party which it has in law, based upon the principle of 5
'ex debito justitiae' or if it found that the decision is based upon a
fraud practiced upon it by a party to the lis.
15.4. Even otherwise, a decision obtained by practicing fraud
upon the Court or the quasi-judicial authority, would be a decision,
which can always be recalled and revoked by such Court or quasi- 10
judicial authority, if such fraud is established and attributed to the
party in whose favour such decision has been given. Reliance for this
can be placed on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh
and others (2000) 3 SCC 581, which holds that no Court or Tribunal
is powerless to recall its order if it is convinced that the order was 15
obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. When it is established that a
fraud has been practiced upon a Court or quasi-judicial authority, in
obtaining a decision, it cannot be heard to be said that such Court or
quasi-judicial authority, would not have the power and authority to
undo the wrong and is helpless in that regard. On the contrary, it 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
becomes an obligation of such Court or quasi-judicial authority, to
undo, the wrong, upon the decision being found to have been
tainted with fraud in the obtaining of it, and recall it by nullifying
the effect of such decision or benefit accrued to the party
instrumental in practicing such fraud, for to hold that such power of 5
recall does not exist, would have the effect of continuing such fraud,
in spite of having found it to be established and perpetrating
injustice, which cannot be countenanced. In Indian Bank Vs. Satyam
Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 5 SCC 550, while considering a plea
of fraud having been practiced upon the National Consumer 10
Commission, this is what has been said in this regard:
"22. The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power,
specially under Section 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or
order if it is obtained by fraud on court. In the case of fraud
on a party to the suit or proceedings, the court may direct the 15
affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the
decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers which
are resident in all courts, especially of superior jurisdiction.
These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature
and the constitution of the tribunals or courts themselves so as 20
to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to
its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and
wrong and to punish unseemly behaviour. This power is
necessary for the orderly administration of the court's
23. Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and
orderliness of the proceedings of the court and also amounts
to an abuse of the process of court, the courts have been held
to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud
practised upon that court. Similarly, where the court is misled 30
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which
prejudices a party, the court has the inherent power to recall
its order. (See: Benoy Krishna Mukerjee v. Mohanlal Goenka
[AIR 1950 Cal 287] ; Gajanand Sha v. Dayanand Thakur [AIR
1943 Pat 127 : ILR 21 Pat 838] ; Krishnakumar v. Jawand 5
Singh [AIR 1947 Nag 236 : ILR 1947 Nag 190] ; Devendra
Nath Sarkar v. Ram Rachpal Singh [ILR (1926) 1 Luck 341 :
AIR 1926 Oudh 315] ; Saiyed Mohd. Raza v. Ram Saroop [ILR
(1929) 4 Luck 562 : AIR 1929 Oudh 385 (FB)] ; Bankey
Behari Lal v. Abdul Rahman [ILR (1932) 7 Luck 350 : AIR 10
1932 Oudh 63] ; Lekshmi Amma Chacki Amma v. Mammen
Mammen [1955 Ker LT 459] .) The court has also the inherent
power to set aside a sale brought about by fraud practised
upon the court (Ishwar Mahton v. Sitaram Kumar [AIR 1954
Pat 450] ) or to set aside the order recording compromise 15
obtained by fraud. (Bindeshwari Pd. Chaudhary v. Debendra
Pd. Singh [AIR 1958 Pat 618 : 1958 BLJR 651] ; Tara Bai v.
V.S. Krishnaswamy Rao [AIR 1985 Kant 270 : ILR 1985 Kant
2930].)"
While noting that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, conferred
power upon the Commission, in view of sub-section (4) of
Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, for the summoning and
enforcing attendance of witnesses, discovery, production, reception
of evidence on affidavits, issuing commission for examination of 25
witnesses, it held that the plea of fraud could also be decided on the
basis of the admitted material on record :
"31. The Privy Council in Satish Chandra Chatterji v. Kumar
Satish Kantha Roy [AIR 1923 PC 73 : (1923-24) 28 CWN 327]
"Charges of fraud and collusion like those contained in the plaint
in this case must, no doubt, be proved by those who make them
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
-- proved by established facts or inferences legitimately drawn
from those facts taken together as a whole. Suspicions and
surmises and conjecture are not permissible substitutes for those
facts or those inferences, but that by no means requires that
every puzzling artifice or contrivance resorted to by one accused 5
of fraud must necessarily be completely unravelled and cleared
up and made plain before a verdict can be properly found
against him. If this were not so, many a clever and dextrous
knave would escape."
32. The above principle will apply not only to courts of law but 10
also to statutory tribunals which, like the Commission, are
conferred power to record evidence by applying certain
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure including the power
to enforce attendance of the witnesses and are also given the
power to receive evidence on affidavits. The Commission under 15
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 decides the dispute by
following the procedure indicated in Section 22 read with
Section 13(4) and (5) of the Act."
15.5. In Sukh Sagar Medical College and Hospital Vs. State of 20
Madhya Pradesh and others (2021) 13 SCC 587 (paras 20 & 21) it
has been held, that a quasi-judicial authority is empowered to
withdraw its order if it is obtained by fraud or no enquiry is
conducted.
15.6. It is, thus, apparent that it would also be open for 25
establishing the plea of fraud, to exercise all the powers which are
vested in the Courts or quasi-judicial/statutory authorities, of
summoning and enforcing attendance of witnesses, discovery,
production, reception of evidence on affidavits, issuing commission
for examination of witnesses. These powers are vested in the CSC by 30
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
virtue of Section 9 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000.
15.7. The power of the CSC, to recall an order/decision obtained
by practicing fraud upon it, has also been recognized by a series of
decisions, which would be apparent from the following judgments
relied upon by Dr. Saraf, the learned Advocate General : 5
(i) In Sangita Sharad Kolse (supra) in which a plea that an
order validating caste certificate obtained by suppression and fraud
was under consideration, a learned Division Bench of this Court held
that the CSC had inherent powers to recall it. While noting the 10
distinction between a procedural review and a review on merits, it
was held that fraud would confer inherent jurisdiction upon the CSC
to recall its decision. This has been followed in Rajesh Ramesh
Gaikwad (supra), Special Leave Petition No.17107/2000 against
which, was dismissed as withdrawn, on 29/07/2019. 15
(ii) In Devendra Khedgikar (supra) which was prior to the
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012, it has been held that the CSC
possesses power of recall only in case of element of
misrepresentation or concealment, and interference is to be confined
to such misrepresentation or fraud, which has been followed in Jyoti 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Sheshrao Mupde (supra-HC) Special Leave Petition (C)
No.1954/2009 against which, has been dismissed on 25/10/2013
and Sandeep Manoharrao Waysal (supra) which holds that once
complaint is lodged before the CSC, it is for the CSC to look into the
matter whether validity is obtained by practicing fraud. Both 5
Devendra Khedgiker (supra) and Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde (supra)
have been followed in Vishnu Rajaram Thakar (supra).
(iii) Apoorva Nichale (supra) also holds that CSC may grant,
validity without calling vigilance cell report, if blood relative of
applicant belongs to same caste is granted validity. However, if it is 10
found that earlier caste certificate was obtained by fraud, the
Committee can refuse to grant Validity.
(iv) In Rajeshwar Bone (supra-SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court,
while considering the plea of the validity having been obtained by
"7. The appellant challenged the aforesaid order dated 24-2-2012
passed by the Scrutiny Committee by filing a writ petition being
Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2012 in the High Court of Bombay at
Aurangabad Bench. The High Court after hearing the appellant,
dismissed [Rajeshwar Baburao Bone v. State of Maharashtra, WP 20
No. 5160 of 2012, order dated 17-12-2013 (Bom)] the writ
petition and observed as under:
"In our opinion, the petitioner has wilfully misled the Scrutiny
Committee for securing the validity certificate wrongfully. The
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
petitioner is guilty of making false statements on oath before the
Scrutiny Committee. As a result of misrepresentation made by the
petitioner earlier, the Scrutiny Committee had issued validity
certificate in his favour. However, after realising the fraudulent
act of the petitioner, the Committee proceeded to recall its earlier 5
order. Since the petitioner has played fraud by filing false
affidavits on record before the Committee, the Committee was
justified in recalling its earlier order of granting validity
certificate in favour of the petitioner. It is well established that in
the event of occurrence of fraud, the Scrutiny Committee can 10
recall its earlier order even in the absence of specific provision
enabling the Committee to exercise powers of review."
11. In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a member of
the Scheduled Tribe on the basis of false statements and false
affidavits submitted by him. At the same time indisputably in the 15
year 1991, the appellant got employment on the basis of his claim
to be a member of the Scheduled Tribe. After 18 years of his
employment, the matter was referred to a Scrutiny Committee for
verification. On consideration of all the documents, the enquiry
conducted by the vigilance cell, a validity certificate was issued by 20
the Scrutiny Committee on 19-6-2010. However the matter was
reconsidered by the Scrutiny Committee for the reason that the
tribe certificate issued in favour of his brother was invalidated by
the Committee in 2004 and the order attained finality up to this
Court. The Scrutiny Committee after giving an opportunity 25
recalled its earlier order dated 19-6-2010, whereby a validity
certificate was issued in favour of the appellant."
(v) In Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin (supra) the
learned Division Bench, while considering a plea of the validity 30
having obtained by fraud, on the ground that the first vigilance cell
report was without verification of documents, held that in such cases
CSC can revisit the order.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(vi) In Farha Shaha (supra) another Division Bench of this
Court held that the CSC can recall an order obtained by
misrepresentation of facts or fraud and as such a power is inherent
in CSC to decide or adjudicate a dispute and pass an order.
(vii) In J. Chitra Vs. District Collector and Chairman State 5
Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu and others (2021) 9 SCC
811 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the reopening of enquiry into
caste certificate can only be done, if it is vitiated by fraud or issued
without proper enquiry, which has been followed in Balaji Vs. State
of Maharashtra (supra) by also considering Jyoti Mupde (supra) and 10
Rajeshwar Bone (supra).
(viii) In Raju Ramsingh Vasave (supra) (paras 26 to 28)
the Hon'ble Apex Court has gone even a step further by holding that
if while granting certificate to a member of a family vital evidence
has been ignored, it would be open for the CSC to arrive at a 15
different finding.
15.8. Rakesh Umbraje (supra) on which reliance has been
placed by Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner was a
case in which on the basis of an earlier judgment of this Court in
Anshuman Mahesh Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
(Writ Petition No.13103 of 2022 decided on 11 November 2022), as
considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, the caste claim of
petitioner Anshuman as 'Koli-Mahadev' was invalidated. The father
of Anshuman, however, was issued a caste validity certificate under
the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.2386/1994. This order 5
had attained finality. The other relatives of the petitioner were also
issued with the validity under the orders of this Court. Based on the
validity certificates of the father, granted under the orders of this
Court, the Coordinate Bench, by its order dated 11/11/2022, had
directed the Scrutiny Committee to issue validity certificate to the 10
petitioner. However, there was a passing reference in the order that
there appeared to be some discrepancies in the genealogy of the
relatives of the petitioner Anshuman. In the entire order passed by
this Court, the Coordinate Bench never directed/ordered to reopen
the caste validity proceedings of the petitioners. The CSC was found 15
to have misconstrued the order in such a way as if the Court directed
the reopening of the proceedings of the validity certificates issued to
the petitioners.
It has thus been held that the scheme of the Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, as noticed from the provisions, revealed that it 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
would be the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC to consider the
application for a caste validity certificate, as provided for in Section
6. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000
clearly provides that the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee
under this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any 5
authority or Court except the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, against any order passed by the CSC, the
remedy for a person aggrieved is only to approach the High Court by
invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India and in no other manner. What is however material to note is 10
that whether the CSC has a power to recall in case a fraud is
established, has not been considered in Rakesh Umbraje (supra) nor
the judgments as indicated above appear to have been brought to its
notice and therefore, it cannot be said to hold the field on account of
non- consideration of the settled legal position as emanating from 15
the judgments, as discussed above, apart from which it is
distinguishable on facts.
15.9. Abhijit Suryakant Thakar (supra) relied upon by
Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner is on the
proposition that old binding decisions cannot be reopened with 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
which proposition there cannot be any dispute.
15.10. Ishwar Naga Bondalwar (supra) relied upon by
Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner holds that the CSC
has no power to review and relies upon Apoorva Nichale (supra) for
that. This was therefore not a case of fraud, as it was held that what 5
the CSC could discover through the Vigilance Cell by due diligence
cannot be categorized as suggestio falsi or suppressio veri. Moreover,
even the show-cause notice in this case did not state any aspect of
fraud and therefore, is not on a proposition that in the case of a
prima facie position of fraud being established on record, the order 10
cannot be recalled.
15.11. Vaibhav Sudhakar Patne (supra) was a case in which the
real cousin sister from the paternal side of the petitioner was already
granted validity on 15/03/2011 by the CSC and since the
relationship with the petitioner in the genealogy was not disputed, it 15
was held that the petitioner was entitled to a validity and is of no
relevance to the point in issue.
15.12. Badalsingh Bharosa Rawale (supra) was a case in which
the matter was remitted back to the CSC to consider it afresh by
permitting the petitioners therein to adduce evidence on the 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
question as to when the petitioners or their forefathers have
migrated to the State of Maharashtra and also has no relevance to
the issue under consideration. Sameer Hariram Shendre (supra) is
merely an order issuing notice and is therefore, of no assistance.
Rajwardhan Ishwardas Metekar (supra) considers the position that 5
there were already two validity certificates issued by the CSC in
favour of the nephew and niece of the petitioner, which still hold the
field and therefore, denial of validity to the petitioner therein was
not justified, which is beside the point under consideration.
Ku. Priyanka Nagesh Erla (supra) remands the matter to the CSC to 10
re-examine the claim of the petitioner by following the procedure
prescribed. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat (supra) is on the proposition that
the finding of a Court or Tribunal without inherent jurisdiction
would be nullity. Sayanna (supra) holds that a finding regarding
fraud so as to enable the CSC to cancel and confiscate the caste 15
certificate has to be made based upon relevant considerations.
15.13. What is also necessary to note is that in Mangesh
Nivrutti Kashid (supra-HC/SC) the Court was concerned with the
huge number of validity certificates issued within the time-frame
and indicated therein, which pointed out the impossibility of the 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
provisions of the Statute being complied with, and thus were not
concerned with cases of fraud having been practiced on the CSC, by
a claimant, in the nature of withholding of any document,
information, material which had a relevant bearing upon the
15.14. An inherent duty therefore lies in every Court/judicial/
quasi-judicial authority, to render a correct decision in order to do
complete justice and for that purpose, if it is brought to the notice of
the Court/judicial/quasi-judicial authority that the decision has been
obtained by suppressing material facts, documents or otherwise by 10
an act which could be termed as a fraud upon the Court/judicial/
quasi-judicial authority, the duty to render complete justice, would
then require such Court/judicial/quasi-judicial authority, to recall
such decision and then to proceed to hold an enquiry, so as to obtain
the correct facts, and then render an appropriate decision based 15
upon such correct position.
15.15. It will thus have to be held that the CSC, has the power
to recall an order/decision, granting validity, in case it is found that
the same was obtained by practicing a fraud upon the CSC, which
may include non-disclosure or suppression of material facts and/or 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
documents, non-disclosure of rejection of validity to a sibling or a
member in the genealogy, etc. It is, however, material to note that
merely because the validity was granted without a vigilance enquiry,
that would not by itself, be sufficient to recall the order/decision
granting validity, as that is permissible to the CSC, in terms of the 5
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012.
15.16. A caveat, however, needs to be sounded inasmuch as not
every such decision is susceptible to a recall, as it cannot be done as
a matter of course, for in order to exercise a power to do complete
justice, it would be necessary for the Court/judicial/quasi-judicial 10
authority to at least prima facie come to an opinion, on the basis of
material being made available to it, by recording short reasons, that
a case for recall, on the ground of fraud, is spelt out and only then,
to issue notice to the other party to show cause as to why the
decision ought not be recalled and that too, only upon hearing the 15
other side and taking such material on record as would be
permissible, to arrive at a conclusion by recording reasons that a
recall is necessary and only then do so. The power of recall therefore
is one, which cannot be routinely used, but can be only done, where
there is no remedy available to the party aggrieved to redress its 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
grievance. It is, therefore, needless to state that where the wrong can
be addressed in an appeal or revision, then that would be a ground
for not exercising such a power of recall, for then such a grievance
can be readily addressed in appeal/revision, nor can the same be
16. We have perused the file of the CSC, as made available to
us by Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government Pleader on behalf of
the learned Advocate General. In the instant case, there are no
reasons recorded in the file, as to why a vigilance enquiry was 10
necessary, in spite of the fact that on earlier two occasions, a validity
certificate was issued to the petitioner. That was the least
expectation from the CSC, before directing a vigilance enquiry, to act
in terms of what has been held in Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur
Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 15
(supra). Even in a case of an allegation of fraud in obtaining the
validity, on the allegation of the applicant having filed false and
fabricated documents, in our considered opinion, the matter cannot
be reopened merely on the basis of such an allegation. The CSC, has
to apply its mind to the averments in the complaint and the 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
documents filed along with it and only when it is prima facie
satisfied that there is some grain of truth in the allegation, then for
the reasons to be recorded, it can direct an enquiry in the complaint.
The order should indicate application of mind by the CSC and its
satisfaction that a prima facie case is made out, mandating an 5
enquiry.
16.1. If this is not done, then for each and every allegation the
enquiry could be ordered, which would lead to the very process of
granting validity suspect and no finality being rendered at all to the
validities, apart from the fact that it would become a tool of misuse 10
in the hands of unscrupulous persons.
16.2. In the instant case, it is already on record that an
identical application filed by respondent No.7, had been rejected by
the CSC, citing Section 7(2) of the Caste Certificate Act, 2000, and
there is absolutely no reason in the impugned decision as to why it 15
thought otherwise, when an application came to be filed by
respondent No.6, on the same set of allegations as to how, the same
view as was taken earlier, based upon Section 7(2) of the Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, ought not to prevail.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
16.3. As indicated in the earlier paragraphs the CSC, ventured
into reopening the validity already granted, not on the ground, that
it was prima facie satisfied that a fraud had been committed upon it,
but on the ground that the Deputy Secretary by his communication
dated 23/02/2024 by e-mail had asked the CSC to do so as is 5
indicated, from the perusal of the impugned decision (internal pg.
6/pg.140 of the record), which cannot be sustained in law.
17. Considering the above position, it would have been
permissible to remand the matter back to the CSC. However, in view 10
of the conduct of the CSC as not above, we do not deem it proper to
do so and consider it appropriate to decide the matter on the facts as
available on record.
17.1. The genealogy given by the petitioner in her application
dated 10/12/2019 indicates that Ganpat Dhulba Sonbarse was her 15
grandfather, who had two sons Somraj (father of the petitioner,
deceased 19/10/1997) and Manichandra Ganpat Sonbarse
(Statement at page 294 of R & P). Ganpat Dhulba Sonbarse is stated
to have born on 24/04/1941 and studied in the school at Murti
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
17.2. The statement of Manichandra Ganpat Sonbarse (pg.294
of the R & P), which has been relied upon by the Committee, to
contend that the petitioner, was the daughter of his maternal uncle,
on account of which, his father Ganpat Dhulba, caste 'Chambhar',
was not related to the petitioner, itself is a contradictory statement, 5
for the statement indicates a relation, though on the maternal side.
The statement itself, indicates that the father-in-law of Chandrakala
(mother of the petitioner Rashmi @ Reena) was residing at Hiwara
Senadwar, Tah. and Distt. Pandhurna (MP) and her husband,
namely, Somraj Somekar was also belonging to the caste 'Chambhar'. 10
The statement further indicates, that Chandrakala, had left Somraj
Sonekar and was residing with her maternal uncle deceased Chindba
Sitaram Chawade, caste 'Chambhar', resident of Kharsoli, Tah.
Narkhed, along with her two daughters Reena and Minakshi and
even on the date of the statement which was recorded on 15
27/03/2024, she was residing at Mouza Kharsoli and the education
and marriage of Reena and Minakshi, was done by Chindba Sitaram
Chawade. Even if this statement is taken at its face value, it will
indicate, that even the father of the petitioner namely, Somraj
Sonekar, was stated to be belonging to the caste 'Chambhar'. 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
17.3. The Vigilance Cell has also placed reliance upon the
statements of (1) Balaji Paradkar (2) Janabai Paradkar (3) Madan
Bansod and (4) Ramesh Sonekar to come to a conclusion that the
genealogy given by the petitioner was incorrect.
17.4. Statement of Balaji Paradkar (pg.262 of R & P) resident of 5
village Giri states that the name of the father of Somraj was Ganpat
Ganya Sonekar, who had two sons Hiralal and Dajiba. Both Hiralal
and Ganya Sonekar and Dajiba Sonekar are claimed to have passed
away in the Murti itself, whose children are stated to be still residing
in the same village. Hiralal Ganya Sonekar has issues by name (a) 10
Ramesh (b) deceased Shyamrao and (c) Chanda and Radha. Dajiba
Ganya Sonekar had one daughter Nirmala who is residing at
Chhindwara. He further states that he was unable to make any
statement as to where the children of Somraj Ganpat Sonekar were.
17.5. The statement of Janabai Chirkut Paradkar (pg.264 of the 15
R & P) resident of Giri, records that name of the father of Somraj
was Ganpat. Ganpat had two sons (a) Hiralal and (b) Dajiba in
whose respect the statement of Balaji Paradkar is reiterated. She
further states that Somraj had ancestral lands in village Murti, which
she had taken on cultivation, however, the said land, had been 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
inundated. She further states that Somraj was addicted to liquor and
gambling, on account of which his wife Chandrakala most of the
time did not reside with him. Somraj had two daughters Reena and
Minakshi from Chandrakala. She further states that she was unable
to tell anything about the widow and children of Somraj. 5
17.6. Statement of Madan Natthuji Bansod (pg.266 of R & P) is
in consonance with what has been stated by Janabai Paradkar.
17.7. Statement of Ramesh Hiralal Sonekar (pg.268 of R & P)
resident of Hiwara Senadwar, Tah. and Distt. Pandhurna (MP) states
that Somraj was his first cousin and the name of his father was 10
Ganpat Ganya Sonekar, who had two brothers, Hiralal and Dajiba.
He further makes a statement that the ancestral land of Sonekar
family i.e. Khasra No.910/663, admeasuring 18 acres was in village
Hiwara Senadwar, however, the land in the share of Dajiba, his uncle
and of Somraj s/o Ganpat had been acquired for a dam. Hiralal 15
Ganya Sonekar, according to him, had passed away at village Hiwara
Senadwar Tah. Pandhurna (MP). He did know when Ganpat Ganya
Sonekar and Dajiba Ganya Sonekar as well as his cousin Somraj
passed away. He further states that his cousin Somraj Ganpat
Sonekar was addicted to liquor and gambling, on account of which 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
there was continuous quarrel between him and his wife
Chandrakala, from whom he had two daughters Rashmi and
Minakshi, whose education was done at Narkhed. He further states
that Hiralal had apart from him one son deceased Shyamrao and
two daughters Chandra and Radha and Dajiba Ganpat Ganya 5
Sonekar had one daughter Nirmala, who was residing at
Chhindwara. He further states that the education of Somraj and
himself had taken place at primary school Hiwara Senadwar, Tah.
Pandhurna (MP) and further education at higher secondary school
Badchicholi, Distt. Pandhurna (MP). After the demise of Somraj, his 10
widow and daughters had permanently shifted to Narkhed and his
cousin niece Reena daughter of Somraj Sonekar @ Rashmi
Shyamkumar Barve was the resident of Parshioni, District Nagpur
and was the President of Zilla Parishad Nagpur.
17.8. It is material to note that even according to the vigilance 15
report Ramesh Hiralal Sonekar is the son of Hiralal brother of
Somraj.
17.9. Though Balaji Paradkar, Janabai Paradkar and Madan
Bansod in their statements state, that the children of Hiralal were
residing at village Murti, the residence of Ramesh, who is the son of 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Hiralal is shown at Hiwara Senadwar, Tah. and District Pandhurna
(MP), which contradicts the stand of the aforesaid persons. The
contradiction is also in respect of the place of demise of Hiralal and
Dajiba as well as the residence of the children of Hiralal and the
ownership in respect of the ancestral property of Sonekar family. 5
17.10. The Vigilance Cell, itself opines that the caste of the
paternal ancestors of the petitioner was "Chambhar", however, it
further opines that since before 10/08/1950 they were residing at
Hiwara Senadwar, Tah. and Distt. Pandhurna (MP) and even today
the cousin of Somraj, namely, Ramesh Hiralal Sonekar was still 10
residing there. It further records that the father of the petitioner,
Somraj Ganpat Sonekar was also a resident of Hiwara Senadwar
Tah. and Distt. Pandhurna (MP), however, on account of his habit of
drinking and gambling, his wife Chandrakala had left him along
with the two daughters Reena and Minakshi and had permanently 15
shifted to her father deceased Chindba Sitaram Chawade's (who is
also claimed to be her maternal uncle) residence at village Kharsoli,
Tq. Narkhed, Distt. Nagpur, long back. It further records that upon
an inquiry, to fill in the form for affinity test, it was stated upon
telephonic contact on the cellphone of the husband of the petitioner 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
that the applicant was in an election meeting for the ensuing Lok-
Sabha and would be meeting the Vigilance Officer on the next day
on which date, the affinity form was required to be filled in. The
report does not say anything as to what had happened on the next
day or on which day the husband of the petitioner was contacted for 5
filling the affinity form. The vigilance report itself opines (pg.259 of
the R & P) that the caste of the petitioner and her paternal
ancestors, was "Chambhar" and prior to 10/08/1950 they were
residing at Hiwara Senadwar Tah. and Distt. Pandhurna (MP). It
therefore opined that the information given by the petitioner, in her 10
application (pg.161 of the R & P) was incorrect on account of the
fact that Ganpat Dhulba, caste 'Chambhar', was not related to her,
nor was Manichandra Ganpatrao Sonbarse, who was claimed to be
her uncle, related to her and the documents filed by her in support
of her caste claim, were not related or relevant. 15
ROLE OF THE VIGILANCE AND CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
18. The role of the vigilance or for that matter the CSC is not
of an adversarial nature, but is to determine, the correctness of the
caste claim, put forth by the applicant. While doing so, the CSC, has 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
to necessarily bear in mind, that the benefits accruing on account of
a person belonging to a particular caste/tribe, are a constitutional
mandate and the Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the Rules framed
thereunder are enacted with an intention, that the benefits on
account of it, are availed of and conferred upon a person who 5
rightfully establishes, a claim of belonging to the caste/tribe to
which the benefits are due on account of their conferment.
18.1. The purpose of an enquiry under the Caste Certificate
Act, 2000, is to determine the claim of the applicant of belonging to
a particular caste/tribe so that the applicant can claim entitlement to 10
the benefits available on that count. The process of such
determination begins from the application filed by the applicant, in
which he/she has to give details of the genealogy, the documents in
support of the claim, any validity granted to a relative and such
other material as is contemplated by the provisions of Rule 16 of the 15
Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 and such other material as the
applicant feels is necessary to support such claim. Does it mean that
for the purpose for determining the claim for the caste validity, it is
only the material/documents filed by the applicant alone which has
to be considered? The answer has to be an emphatic loud and 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
clear - No, for the reason that Rule 17(7) of the Caste Certificate
Rules, 2012, requires the CSC to direct a vigilance enquiry to be
conducted in such a claim, if it is not satisfied by the documents
annexed to the claim, regarding the claim made by the applicant of
belonging to a certain caste/tribe and therefore, would indicate that 5
material/documents found during such vigilance enquiry can also be
taken into consideration for determining the caste/tribe claim.
18.2. The purpose of an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell can
never be with an avowed intention to disprove the caste/tribe claim
of the applicant, but is to find out the truth in the claim and for this 10
purpose to make all such enquiries as may be possible. It is equally
possible that in such an enquiry by the Vigilance Cell, documents or
material may be unearthed, though not filed by the applicant in
support of his/her claim, which may disclose the truthfulness of the
18.3. It is true that the report of the Vigilance Cell is not
binding upon the CSC and it can for the reasons stated, decline to
accept such report and take an opposite view. That, however, does
not deter from the fact that material unearthed by the Vigilance Cell,
other than what has been placed on record by the applicant can also 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
be considered by the CSC for determining the caste/tribe claim. In
case such material otherwise available on record, satisfies the CSC of
the genuineness of the caste/tribe claim of the applicant, nothing
prevents, it from considering such material and granting validity
18.4. This is also to be considered in light of the fact that
passage of time, migration from one place to another, change of
schools, impact of modernization and such other factors, there is
every possibility of a candidate not being aware of the correct
genealogy/or his various relations or for that matter whether his/her 10
ancestors had taken any education or where they were born, resided,
migrated, as well as documents relating to their education, birth,
properties and such other factors, as are required to be considered
for the purposes of establishing the caste/tribe claim.
18.5. Thus, if such material comes on record, apart from what 15
has been filed by the applicant, which establishes the caste/tribe
claim of the applicant, it would not be permissible for the CSC to
ignore such material and reject the claim of the applicant on the
ground that the contents of the application and documents annexed
thereto, do not establish the claim of the applicant belonging to a 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
particular caste/tribe. The purpose is not to deny the claim based
upon the contents of the application and documents annexed with it,
but to provide the benefits of reservation to a person genuinely
belonging to the caste, for which the reservations are meant, and to
ensure a fair and impartial enquiry into the caste/tribe claim, either 5
on the basis of the documents placed on record by the applicant, or
what have been unearthed by the Vigilance Cell, in case they have a
bearing upon the matter.
MIGRATION
19. The vigilance report dated 27/03/2024, records that the 10
paternal ancestors of Somraj Ganpat Sonekar, were belonging to the
caste 'Çhambhar', and they were residing at village : Hiwara
Senadwar, Tah. Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh
prior to the deemed date of 10/08/1950 (Date of Presidential
Notification). Even today, the paternal uncle of the petitioner, 15
namely, Ramesh Hiralal Sonekar is said to be a resident of the above
village. As Somraj s/o Ganpat Sonekar, the father of the petitioner
was said to be addicted to liquor, her mother Chandrakala, is said to
have left him, and had come to reside with her father Chinda
Sitaram Chawade at village: Kharsoli, Tah: Narkhed, District 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Nagpur. Somraj s/o Ganpat Sonekar is said to be visiting
Chandrakala at Kharsoli, time to time, where the petitioner and her
sister have been born. It is the maternal grandfather of the
petitioner, who is claimed to have brought up the petitioner and her
sister and imparted education to them at Kharsoli. 5
19.1. The report of the Vigilance Cell dated 27/03/2024
(pg.257 of the R & P), though indicates discrepancies in the
information contained in the application and the documents filed in
support of her claim of belonging to the Scheduled Caste
'Chambhar', however, the vigilance cell report itself unequivocally 10
states that Somraj s/o Ganpat Sonekar, the father of the petitioner
and his ancestors belonged to the caste 'Chamar', which admittedly
is a Scheduled Caste. The statement of Ramesh Hiralal Sonekar, as
referred to above in this regard, the paternal uncle of the petitioner,
clearly establishes this position. That apart the statements of (1) 15
Balaji Paradkar (2) Janabai Paradkar and (3) Madan Bansod, who
all are residents of village Murti, as referred to above, also
establishes this position, that the father of the petitioner belonged to
the 'Chamar' caste.
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
19.2. Though the vigilance cell report dated 27/03/2024,
indicates that the caste of Somraj s/o Ganpat Sonekar, father of the
petitioner was 'Chamar', it indicates that the claim ought to be
rejected as the father of the petitioner was a resident of village :
Hiwara Senadwar, Tah. Pandhurna, Dist. Chhindwara, Madhya 5
Pradesh and the validity was sought in the State of Maharashtra.
20. Before we proceed ahead in this regard, the position
with respect to the caste 'Chamar' as on the date of the Presidential
Notification, by which Scheduled Castes were notified would be 10
material to be noted. By a notification issued in exercise of the
powers under Article 342 of the Constitution dated 10/08/1950, the
Hon'ble President, declared the castes which would be entitled to the
benefit of reservations in the matter of public employment and
Chhindwara District in which Pandhurna is situated was
included in the State of Madhya Pradesh as it then was, which also
included Nagpur District. Because of the States Reorganisation Act,
1956, which came into effect on 31/08/1956, the areas comprising
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
of the District of Nagpur by virtue of Section 8(1)(c) of the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956, came to be included in the Bombay State.
20.1. By virtue of Section 3(1)(b) of the Bombay
Reorganisation Act, 1960, which came into effect from 25/04/1960,
the State of Bombay came to be known as 'Maharashtra', with 5
certain areas as indicated in Section 3(1)(a) therein going to the
State of Gujarat. The position, however, as to Nagpur District, as
indicated above, remained the same.
20.2. The question, as what was the position when a resident
of District Chhindwara, which was a part of the erstwhile State of 10
Madhya Pradesh migrated to the District Nagpur, which was also a
part of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh before the States
Reorganisation Act, 1956, came up for consideration in Sudhakar
Vitthal Kumbhare Vs. State of Maharashtra (2004) 9 SCC 481, when
"5. But the question which arises for consideration herein
appears to have not been raised in any other case. It is not in
dispute that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes have
suffered disadvantages and been denied facilities for
development and growth in several States. They require 20
protective preferences, facilities and benefits inter alia in the
form of reservation, so as to enable them to compete on equal
terms with the more advantaged and developed sections of the
community. The question is as to whether the appellant being a
Scheduled Tribe known as Halba/Halbi which stands recognized 25
both in the State of Madhya Pradesh as well as in the State of
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Maharashtra having their origin in Chhindwara region, a part of
which, on States' reorganisation, has come to the State of
Maharashtra, was entitled to the benefit of reservation. It is one
thing to say that the expression "in relation to that State"
occurring in Article 342 of the Constitution of India should be 5
given an effective or proper meaning so as to exclude the
possibility that a tribe which has been included as a Scheduled
Tribe in one State after consultation with the Governor for the
purpose of the Constitution may not get the same benefit in
another State whose Governor has not been consulted; but it is 10
another thing to say that when an area is dominated by
members of the same tribe belonging to the same region which
has been bifurcated, the members would not continue to get the
same benefit when the said tribe is recognized in both the
States. In other words, the question that is required to be posed 15
and answered would be as to whether the members of a
Scheduled Tribe belonging to one region would continue to get
the same benefits despite bifurcation thereof in terms of the
States Reorganisation Act. With a view to find out as to whether
any particular area of the country was required to be given 20
protection is a matter which requires detailed investigation
having regard to the fact that both Pandhurna in the district of
Chhindwara and a part of the area of Chandrapur at one point
of time belonged to the same region and under the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 as it originally stood the tribe 25
Halba/Halbi of that region may be given the same protection. In
a case of this nature the degree of disadvantages of various
elements which constitute the input for specification may not be
totally different and the State of Maharashtra even after
reorganisation might have agreed for inclusion of the said tribe 30
Halba/Halbi as a Scheduled tribe in the State of Maharashtra
having regard to the said fact in mind."
20.3. The issue then came up in Bharat Bhimrao Malakwade
Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee 2013(5) Mh. LJ
"10. In our view, earlier Chhindwara where the ancestors of the
petitioner had been permanently residing and Nagpur where
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
the petitioner and his family are now permanently residing, had
been parts of the C.P. and Berar before reorganization of the
States. After reorganization of the States, Chhindwara became
part of the Madhya Pradesh State and Nagpur became part of
the Maharashtra State. These peculiar facts are considered by 5
the Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (cited
supra) and it is held that such persons whose Caste/Tribe is
recognized in both the States, are entitled for the benefits of
reservation. We are of the opinion that in view of the peculiar
facts of the present case, as in the case of Sudhakar Vithal 10
Kumbhare (cited supra), the petitioner will be entitled for the
benefits as a Scheduled Caste candidate as it is not disputed
that "Mahar" has been recognized as Scheduled Caste in the
Madhya Pradesh State and it is recognized as Scheduled Caste
20.4. It also came for consideration in Prashant Shamraoji
Shende Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3,
Nagpur and others [Writ Petition No.6836/2013, decided on
14/12/2016], in which it has been held as under: 20
"2. The petitioner has approached this Court being
aggrieved by the order passed by respondent no.1
dt.9.12.2013, vide which the claim of the petitioner of
belonging to 'Mahar' Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected. 25
The petitioner since was employed with respondent no.2 as
a Peon on the basis of his claim of belonging to 'Mahar'
Scheduled Tribe, his caste claim came to be referred to
respondent no.1 for scrutinizing the said claim. The claim of
the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that 30
fore-fathers of the petitioner were not residents of the State
of Maharashtra prior to the year 1950. The claim is basically
rejected in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Marri Chandrashekhar Rao .vs. Dean, G.S. Medical
College and Others reported in (1990) 3 SCC 130 and the 35
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
Judgment in the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste
Certificate to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the
State of Maharashtra and another vs. Union of India and
another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's forefathers are 5
residents of village Tigaon, Tq.Pandhurna, District
Chhindwada. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner's
father has migrated to Nagpur. Pandhurna Taluka is a part
of Chhindwada District. Chhindwada District and Nagpur
District were part of the same State i.e. Madhya Bharat 10
prior to re-organisation of the State. Similar factual scenario
was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhakar
Vithal Kumbhare vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004
(4) Mh.L.J. (SC) 784. Whereas the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Bharat s/o. Bhimrao Malakwade vs. 15
Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.3,
Nagpur and another reported in 2013 (5) Mh.L.J. 946 has
also held that if the areas where ancestors of the claimants
reside and the areas where they have migrated form part of
the same State prior to re-organisation of the State, then 20
such claimants cannot be denied benefits of reservation
meant for the candidates belonging to either Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes.
4. We find that the facts in the present case are squarely
covered by the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 25
Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare (cited supra). Apart from that,
perusal of the Vigilance Cell report itself would reveal that
the Vigilance Cell found that the petitioner's fore-fathers
reside in village Tigaon, Tq.Pandhurna, Distt. Chhindwara
and the documents prior to 1950 also show the caste of the 30
fore-fathers of the petitioner to be 'Mahar'. Undisputedly,
caste 'Mahar' is recognized as a Scheduled Caste in both the
Maharashtra State and the State of Madhya Pradesh. In that
view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed."
20.5. The position has been recently considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
others (2021) 20 SCC 545 [Civil Appeal No.4964/2021 decided on
19/08/2021], in which after consideration Sudhakar Vitthal
Kumbhare (supra) this is what has been opined :
"54. The collective readings of the provisions of the Act, 2000 5
makes it apparent that such of the persons whose place of
origin/domicile on or before the appointed day was of the
State of Bihar now falling within the districts/regions which
form a successor State, i.e., State of Jharkhand under Section
3 of the Act, 2000 became ordinary resident of the State of 10
Jharkhand, at the same time, so far as the employees who
were in public employment in the State of Bihar on or before
the appointed day, i.e. 15 th November, 2000 under the Act
2000, apart from those who are domicile of either of the
district which became part of the State of Jharkhand, such of 15
the employees who have submitted their option or employees
who are junior in the cadre of their seniority as per the policy
of the Government of India of which a reference has been
made, either voluntarily or involuntarily call upon to serve
the State of Jharkhand, their existing service conditions shall 20
not be varied to their disadvantage and stands protected by
virtue of Section 73 of the Act, 2000.
55. In our considered view, such of the employees who are
members of the SC/ST/OBC whose caste/tribe has been 25
notified by an amendment to the Constitution(Scheduled
Castes)/(Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950 under Vth and VIth
Schedule to Sections 23 and 24 of the Act 2000 or by the
separate notification for members of other backward class
category, benefit of reservation including privileges and 30
benefits flowing thereof, shall remain protected by virtue of
Section 73 of the Act 2000 for all practical purposes which
can be claimed (including by their wards) for participation in
public employment.
56. It is made clear that person is entitled to claim benefit of
reservation in either of the successor State of Bihar or State
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
of Jharkhand, but will not be entitled to claim benefit of
reservation simultaneously in both the successor States and
those who are members of the reserved category and are
resident of the successor State of Bihar, while participating in
open selection in State of Jharkhand shall be treated to be 5
migrants and it will be open to participate in general
category without claiming the benefit of reservation and vice-
versa."
20.6. The above proposition has also been laid down in 10
Devendra Dashrath Sahare (supra) and Dhammanand Maniram
Jambhulkar (para11) [supra].
20.7. The above legal proposition, is clearly attracted to the case
of the petitioner, considering the fact position, as narrated above.
LOCUS OF RESPONDENT NOS.6 AND 7.
21. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) the issue of locus,
was considered in the light of who can be said to be an aggrieved
party, by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following words :
"9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be 20
permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the
authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved
persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal
injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is 25
maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or
legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that
there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the
authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable
right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ 30
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can, of course, enforce the
performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person
satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of such right is a condition 5
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is
implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that
the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In
fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the
exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right 10
that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the
appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right
and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. [Vide
State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [1951 SCC 1024 : AIR
1952 SC 12], Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1954 SC 728], 15
Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. [AIR 1962
SC 1044], Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460 :
AIR 1996 SC 2736] and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank
Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar [(2009) 2 SCC
10. A "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal
rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit
conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression,
"person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from
a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved 25
must, therefore, necessarily be one whose right or interest has
been adversely affected or jeopardised. (Vide Shanti Kumar R.
Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York [(1974) 2 SCC 387 :
AIR 1974 SC 1719] and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against
entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous
persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process
of court. The right of effective access to justice, which has
emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to 35
serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal
rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework
of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public
interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure
that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court 40
must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse
of the process of court and that, "ordinarily meddlesome
bystanders are not granted a visa". Many societal pollutants
create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases,
where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it.
(Vide P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam [(1980) 3 SCC
141 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 649 : AIR 1980 SC 856], Dalip Singh v.
State of U.P. [(2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 324], 5
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal [(2010) 3 SCC
402 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 81 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 807] and
Amar Singh v. Union of India [(2011) 7 SCC 69 : (2011) 3 SCC
(Civ) 560] .)
17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be 10
summarised to the effect that a person who raises a grievance,
must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a
stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property,
cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others."
21.1. While considering Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra)
a learned Division Bench of this Court in Shakila Begum
Faiyyazuddin (supra) has held that in exceptional circumstances,
even if the bona fides of a third person are doubted, but the issues
raised by him in the opinion of the Court requires consideration, the 20
Court may proceed suo motu in the said respect.
21.2. In Shashant Giridhar Nandanwar (supra) while considering
an application for intervention by a third party in a caste claim, it
has been held that it is a personal claim, which is required to be
proved before the authority appointed for that purpose under the 25
relevant Statute and the question that is to be decided would only be
whether such personal claim is proved or not and cannot be turned
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
into an adversarial proceedings by permitting intervention of third
parties, as if some private dispute is going on between them.
Mahesh Pralhadrao Lad (supra) holds that all documents, whether
post or pre-constitutional or Presidential or State notification, can be
considered as also oral evidence, treated in the form of evidence. 5
Ashwin Rajendra Parate (supra) is on facts considering absence of
contra evidence. Bharat Bhagwant Tayade (supra) holds that the
validity granted could not have been rejected, there being no
allegations of it having obtained by fraud or misrepresentation or
21.3. Examining the claim of respondent Nos.6 and 7, in light
of the above proposition, we find that nothing is said by them, as to
how they are aggrieved persons and thus acquire locus. The CSC
also has not delved on this issue, which, in fact, was its bounden
duty, before taking cognizance of any such claim by respondent 15
No.6, specifically when a similar claim at the behest of respondent
No.7, had been rejected by it, in view of Section 7(2) of the Caste
Certificate Act, 2000.
21.4. Even presuming otherwise, the third party, in case it feels
that any statutory provision has been violated or there is something 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
amiss in a decision having been rendered, its role would be limited
to the same being brought to the notice of the concerned authority,
who is empowered to rectify the same, and the matter cannot be
converted to an adversarial litigation on that count. We, therefore,
hold that respondent Nos.6 and 7, having brought to the notice, the 5
plea as raised by them in their complaints, it was for the CSC then to
take over and in case it found a prima facie case of fraud for reasons
to be recorded in writing, to proceed ahead. The role of respondent
Nos.6 and 7, would thus end at the stage of they having brought
their grievance to the CSC and the CSC having taken cognizance 10
thereof.
21.5. It is also necessary to note the background for deletion of
respondent No.6 by the order dated 03/05/2024, at the request of
the learned counsel for the petitioner. We had heard the matter
substantially and had also expressed our opinion, stating our dis- 15
satisfaction with the conduct and decision of the CSC when, on the
next date i.e. 02/05/2024, a Counsel appeared and made a
statement that a Counsel, whose matters my learned Sister on the
Bench does take up, had filed her Vakalatnama on behalf of
respondent No.6. We, therefore, had disapproved of such conduct, 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
which was solely aimed at scuttling the course of the proceedings
and amounted to Bench hunting.
21.6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in
the above background, made a statement for deletion of respondent
No.6, which was so directed to be done by the order dated 5
03/05/2024. This is only to put on record the lengths at which,
respondent Nos.6 and 7, and persons backing them have gone to
ensure that the matter is not decided.
22. In view of the facts as culled out supra and the law as 10
indicated above, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner
has made out a case that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste
'Chambhar', as even the material unearthed by the Vigilance Cell
indicates that her father was belonging to that caste. The CSC
appears to have gone on a witch hunt, being influenced by the letter 15
of the Under-Secretary to the State and the complaints received by
it, and instead of applying an independent mind, has danced to the
tune of respondent No.7, who, once having failed in an earlier
attempt in this regard, enlisted the help of the Under-Secretary to
the State, to influence the CSC into discarding its earlier stand taken 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
on his application, in conjunction with respondent No.6 and other
officials to ensure that all mandatory Rules, which govern the field
and even the principles of natural justice of affording a reasonable
opportunity, are thrown to the winds, in order to reject the caste
claim of the petitioner, to ensure that she would not be a candidate 5
in the parliamentary elections. The impugned decision, which is a
result of such shenanigans cannot be permitted to stand and
specifically so, when there is material found in the independent
enquiry by the Vigilance Cell to indicate that the caste claim of the
23. Though Dr. Saraf, the learned Advocate General, has
valiantly tried to defend the conduct of the CSC, which we
appreciate, however, before parting with this judgment, considering
the discussion above, we feel it our bounden duty to strongly 15
deprecate the conduct of the CSC, who, instead of acting
independently, dispassionately and within the four corners of the
Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the Rules framed thereunder, has
conducted the enquiry, in a manner, which no Court of the land can
accept, as it has merely acted as a lackey of the administration, in 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
view of which, we feel it our duty to saddle a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-
upon the CSC, so that it in future the same would act as a deterrent
before it even thinks of dancing to the tune of someone else, instead
of performing its statutory functions within the four corners of the
24. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned decision of
the Caste Scrutiny Committee, dated 28/03/2024 and direct that it
shall issue a validity certificate to the petitioner of she belonging to
the Scheduled Caste 'Chambhar', within a period of one week from 10
today. The Caste Scrutiny Committee is directed to pay a cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) to the petitioner within a
period of one week. As a result of the above, all consequent actions
done or effected in pursuance to the impugned decision, dated
25. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.
26. We also thank the learned Counsels for the respective
parties and also the learned Advocate General, for the erudite 20
WP 2155 of 2024 - Judgment.odt
arguments advanced by them, which have been of a great assistance
to us in deciding the matter.
(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
At this stage, Mr. D.V. Chauhan, learned Government
Pleader for the State makes a request to keep the effect and
operation of the judgment in abeyance for a period of two weeks.
However, considering what has been discussed in the judgment, we
do not see any reason to accept the request. The same is, therefore, 10
declined.
(SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
Khunte/Wadkar
Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 24/09/2024 17:57:29
