Bombay High Court
Digambar Vitthalrao Dhawle vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 4 August, 2025
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8316 OF 2025
1. Santosh Anil Kolhe,
Age : 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Jamb, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat,
Head Quarter, Chh. Sambhajinagar
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7914 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8316 OF 2025
1. Digambar S/o Vitthalrao Dhawle,
Age: 63 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o: Dhawle Niwas, Samta Nagar,
Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Latur. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Santosh s/O Anil Kolhe,
Age : 44 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Jamb (Bu), Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat.
...
AND
2 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
WRIT PETITION NO.8318 OF 2025
1. Sham Anil Kolhe,
Age : 39 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Jamb, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat,
Head Quarter, Chh. Sambhajinagar
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7912 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 8318 OF 2025
1. Digambar S/o Vitthalrao Dhawle,
Age: 63 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o: Dhawle Niwas, Samta Nagar,
Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Latur. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Sham S/o Anil Kolhe,
Age : 40 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Jamb (Bu), Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat.
...
AND
3 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
WRIT PETITION NO.8328 OF 2025
1. Sharad Arunrao Kolhe,
Age : 37 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Jamb, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat,
Head Quarter, Chh. Sambhajinagar
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7913 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8328 OF 2025
1. Digambar S/o Vitthalrao Dhawle,
Age: 63 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o: Dhawle Niwas, Samta Nagar,
Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Latur. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Sharad S/o Arunrao Kolhe,
Age : 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Jamb (Bu), Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat.
...
AND
4 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
WRIT PETITION NO.8337 OF 2025
1. Balaji Arunrao Kolhe,
Age : 41 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. Jamb, Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded. ..Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through It's Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat,
Head Quarter, Chh. Sambhajinagar
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7986 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8337 OF 2025
1. Digambar S/o Vitthalrao Dhawle,
Age: 63 years, Occu: Pensioner,
R/o: Dhawle Niwas, Samta Nagar,
Mukhed, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Latur. ..Applicant
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Social Welfare Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. Balaji S/o Arunrao Kolhe,
Age : 42 years, Occu: Service,
R/o. At Post Jamb (Bu), Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate, ..Respondents
Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat.
...
• Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Petitioners in all WPs.
• Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for the Applicant in all CAs.
• Mr. S. P. Sonpawale and Ms. Saie S. Joshi, AGPs for Respondents-
State in all WPs.
5 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
...
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 04.08.2025
ORDER (PER : MANISH PITALE, J.)
1. In these petitions the Petitioners have challenged orders dated
15.05.2025 passed by the Respondent - Scrutiny Committee, whereby, earlier
orders granting validity certificates to the tribe claims of the petitioners have
been cancelled and their claims have been invalidated. The Scrutiny Committee
has exercised power, in effect, to recall its own earlier orders on the ground that
such orders were obtained by the petitioners on the basis of suppressions and
misrepresentations.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners in these petitions have
relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Rakesh Bhimashankar
Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2023 63 OnLine Bom 1013 to
contend that the Scrutiny Committee does not have the power to recall or review
its own orders, even if issues of fraud or misrepresentation arise. It is contended
that since the Scrutiny Committee is a creature of a statute i.e. the Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category
(Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000
(herein after referred to as the Act of 2000), which does not provide for
power of review, the impugned orders are unsustainable.
6 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
3. It is specifically submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
this Court on earlier occasions, by relying upon the said judgment, has
stayed such orders and even suo moto notices for recalling of earlier
orders have been stayed by this Court on the basis of the said position of
law.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners also relied upon
judgments of this Court in the cases of Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.; 2024 (7) ALL MR 45 and Anil Shivram Bandawar
Vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee and another; 2021
(5) Mh.L.J. 345.
5. The learned AGPs submit that various benches of this Court
have taken the view that since fraud vitiates everything, despite absence
of power in the Scrutiny Committee to review its own orders, it would
still not denude the Scrutiny Committee of its power of revisiting an
order which is obtained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation. In
this context reliance is placed on judgment of this Court in the case of
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
(Judgment and Order dated 17.12.2013 passed in Writ Petition
No.5160/2012, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its
Judgment in the case of Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another ; (2015) 14 SCC 497. Reliance was also placed
on other judgments of different benches of this Court such as Shakila
Begum Faiyyazuddin Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Judgment
7 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
and order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.7518/2016) , Jyoti
Sheshrao Mupde Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Order dated
22.08.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.1954/2009), Sangita Sharad Kolse
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1743 , Vishnu
Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.; 2022(3) Mh.L.J.629
and Farha Ashfaqali Shaha Vs. Member Secretary and Research Officer,
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee; 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 4206.
6. We are of the opinion that in the light of the aforesaid
judgments relied upon by the rival parties, important questions of law
arise for consideration. There appears to be an apparent cleavage in the
approach adopted by the various division benches on the question as to
whether the Scrutiny Committee can at all exercise power to recall its
own earlier orders on the limited ground that such orders were obtained
by fraud or misrepresentation. In this context, it would be appropriate to
refer to the relevant portions of the aforementioned judgments.
7. In the case of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra) a division bench of this Court while considering a
challenge raised to suo moto notices issued by the Scrutiny Committee
for recalling its earlier order, after referring to the relevant provisions of
the Act of 2000, held as follows :
24. Thus, a 'caste certificate' is certainly not a 'caste validity
certificate', as issuance of a caste validity certificate is an
independent exercise to be undertaken by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee by exercising its quasi-judicial powers. It is hence
clear that the power conferred on the Caste Scrutiny
8 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
Committee under sub-section (1) of Section 7 to enquire into
any false caste certificate and form an opinion that a caste
certificate was obtained fraudulently and to cancel and
confiscate the certificate as ordered in sub-section (1) of
Section 7, cannot be read to mean that the Caste Scrutiny
Committee has the power to review its own orders/decisions
granting caste validity certificate in case of a complaint being
made that the caste validity certificate has been obtained
fraudulently by any applicant seeking validity of the caste
certificate.
25. It is quite clear from the reading of sub-section (2) that not
only such orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee
under sub-section (1) but orders passed by the Scrutiny
Committee under the provisions of "the Act", which would
include a grant of a caste validity certificate, shall be final and
cannot be challenged before any Authority or Court except
the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This clearly infers that once a decision is taken by the Caste
Scrutiny Committee either under the provisions of sub-section
(1) of Section 7 or under the provisions of Section 6, the
Caste Scrutiny Committee becomes functus officio, and such
decision can only be assailed by approaching the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot
be any other reading from the provisions of sub- section (2)
of Section 7.
26. Thus, from the scheme of the legislation it is clear that the
Caste Scrutiny Committee would not have any jurisdiction to
review/revisit its own orders and decisions granting caste
validity certificates. This would also be clear from the reading
of Section 9. It may also be observed that the legislature is
conscious in making available limited powers of the Civil
Court to the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority and
the Scrutiny Committee, which are specifically enumerated in
Section 9. The legislature has consciously avoided to confer
the powers of a review as envisaged under Section 114, read
with provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Once such provision conferring powers of a review are
excluded in their application to the Caste Scrutiny
Committee, there is no question of such powers being
conferred by any implication under any circumstances.
27. Considering the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7,
consciously, the legislature has not conferred powers on the
authority issuing caste certificate to revisit the decision to
issue caste certificate and cancel the same in view of fraud
and misrepresentation. Such power is conferred on a higher
9 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
authority, namely on the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The
contention of the learned AGP that because the Caste Scrutiny
Committee had issued validity certificate, it would have
jurisdiction to revisit/review its decision when there is fraud
and misrepresentation is totally untenable. As noted above,
the legislature was fully conscious of the fact that a validity
certificate could be obtained from the Caste Scrutiny
Committee by playing fraud, however, consciously, the
legislature has avoided to confer any power of review on the
Caste Scrutiny Committee to review/revisit its own decision
even in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of
material facts. In fact, such an interpretation would defeat the
mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 7.
28. It would need no emphasis that the power to review any
order in the nature of the order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee would be the power required to be expressly
conferred by the provisions of the legislation under which the
Caste Scrutiny Committee functions.
29. If the contention, as urged on behalf of the respondent, that
the Scrutiny Committee has jurisdiction to review its own
decision/orders, although not expressly conferred by law, is
accepted, the situation is just to be imagined, inasmuch as on
any complaint alleging fraud and in respect of cases wherein
the validity to a caste certificate has been continued by
substantive orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee or
under orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court,
cannot be reopened by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on any
complaint of fraud. This certainly is not the intention of the
legislation to unsettle the concluded issues wherein the caste
validity certificates are granted as per law and under orders
passed by the higher Courts. It is for such reason the
legislature has categorically avoided conferring any powers of
review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
30. We are thus of the clear opinion that in the event a complaint
being made in regard to any validity certificate granted by
Caste Scrutiny Committee to be vitiated by fraud or illegality,
the only course open to such a complainant or otherwise any
person/authority is to approach the High Court by invoking
the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution and seek its
interference in setting aside the validity certificate granted in
favour of such person in view of the clear provisions of sub-
section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. It is in such proceedings
under Article 226 the Court would be required to apply its
mind as to whether the allegations of fraud or any illegality
are of such nature that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny
10 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
Committee was vitiated and is required to be set aside. This
would assume more significance as a grant of caste validity
certificate confers substantive rights on the person holding
such certificate, by virtue of which a right in rem is conferred
on such person on the basis of such caste validity certificate.
xxx
xxx
xxx
34. As the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no powers to review,
there is no question of any suo motu powers to be exercised
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and in any exercise of such
suo motu jurisdiction would be invalid, illegal and contrary to
the provisions of the Act.
35. We are not inclined to accept the contention as urged by the
learned AGP relying on Rajeshwar Baburao Bone (supra),
firstly, for the reason that this is not a decision on a
proposition that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has
substantive powers to review its own decision. Secondly, such
is not the ratio of the said judgment and thirdly, the facts of
the present case are altogether different from that case.
Significantly, in Rajeshwar Baburao Bone (supra), the
petitioner got the validity certificate in 2010, however, the
petitioner's brother had his tribe certificate cancelled in 2004.
In the present case, the petitioners received validity based on
the validity certificates of their blood relatives, which were
granted under the orders of the Court and have not been
revoked or cancelled yet.
xxx
xxx
xxx
37. Thus, for all the above reasons, we find it difficult to approve
the legality of the impugned notice/action of the respondent-
Scrutiny Committee. We are, therefore, of the view that the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee has acted without jurisdiction
while issuing the impugned notice. The respondent-Scrutiny
Committee's action to reopen the validity proceedings by its
impugn notice cannot be justified. In our considered view, this
action of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee is unsustainable
in law, perverse and vitiated by complete disregard to the
judicial pronouncements. Accordingly, we quash and set aside
the impugned notice of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee."
8. Subsequently, the aforesaid judgment was relied upon by a
subsequent division bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Nagu Garud
11 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). In the said judgment, after
relying upon the aforementioned judgment in the case of Rakesh
Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra), a note of
caution was struck by observing as follows :
44. This apart, in our opinion, if in a situation that a Caste Scrutiny
Committee has granted validity to a caste certificate and the same is
being questioned later on (in present cases after long lapse of time)
it can only be on a prima facie satisfaction of the High Court in any
acceptable and legitimate proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution that such a plea needs to be accepted for reopening/re-
examination of the issue by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, and not
otherwise. There cannot be a free hand or a licence to the Caste
Scrutiny Committee to reopen concluded cases of validity being
conferred by it by its earlier orders to be revisited or re-examined
on a complaint or otherwise and review its orders.
45. Also such contentions as urged on behalf of the State that the Caste
Scrutiny Committee has inherent powers to review its own orders
would lead to devastating consequences, as rightly urged on behalf
of the petitioners. Such consequence would be:--
(i) That the Caste Scrutiny Committee would be permitted to
form its subjective opinion on a decision taken by a co-
ordinate Committee irrespective of the period when such
decision was taken either suo motu or otherwise;
(ii) A pure subjective opinion of the Caste Scrutiny Committee
would be as to what according to it would be a case of
misrepresentation and fraud, so as to reopen concluded
case of an earlier validity being granted;
(iii) Such reopening of the validity already granted would be
without any restriction as to limitation (as in the present
case), creating a situation to unsettle concluded issues;
(iv) Even to make allegations of a fraud on a concluded issued
under the general law would be covered by a prescribed
period limitation. Even if validity has been fraudulently
obtained, it cannot be that on an allegation of fraud in a
given case, issues can be reopened after such enormous
delay of 15 to 20 years although it may be a consideration
to decide future cases.
46. Thus in our opinion, the Caste Scrutiny Committee, being a
statutory body exercising quasi adjudicatory functions, would not
12 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
have any jurisdiction to suo motu verify the past records and
initiate an action to reopen past decision and invalidate the caste
validity certificates already granted. If an inherent power of review
is to be read in the provisions of the 2000 Act, it would lead to a
monumental uncertainty and absurdity in the functioning of the
Caste Scrutiny Committee, as it can be at the ipse dixit of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee to reopen concluded cases. This would lead to
patent arbitrariness. For such reasons, it is not possible to come to a
conclusion that any inherent power of review is available with the
Caste Scrutiny Committee.
9. In the case of Anil Shivram Bandawar Vs. District Caste
Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli and another (supra) a division
bench of this Court found that since the Scrutiny Committee itself in the show
cause notice had not found that its earlier order had been obtained by fraud, such
show cause notice was held to be without jurisdiction.
10. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors.; AIR 2013 SC 58, the Supreme Court considered a
question as to whether a complainant could approach the Scrutiny Committee
challenging the validity of caste/tribe certificate of a rival. The question of
locus standi of such person was considered and eventually it was held as
follows :
22. Thus, from the above it is evident that under ordinary
circumstances, a third person, having no concern with the case at
hand, cannot claim to have any locus-standi to raise any grievance
whatsoever. However, in the exceptional circumstances as referred
to above, if the actual persons aggrieved, because of ignorance,
illiteracy, inarticulation or poverty, are unable to approach the
court, and a person, who has no personal agenda, or object, in
relation to which, he can grind his own axe, approaches the court,
then the court may examine the issue and in exceptional
circumstances, even if his bona fides are doubted, but the issue
raised by him, in the opinion of the court, requires consideration,
the court may proceed suo motu, in such respect.
13 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
11. We find that the Division Benches of this Court in the cases of
Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and
Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) even
after taking note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (supra)
laid down a wide proposition that even if an allegation is made that the
order of the Scrutiny Committee has been obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation, the Scrutiny Committee would not have power to
recall its own order, for the reason that the Scrutiny Committee does not
have power to exercise review jurisdiction.
12. We find that the judgments relied upon by the learned AGPs
demonstrate that while it is acknowledged by the other benches of equal
strength of this Court that the Scrutiny Committee, being a creation of
the Act of 2000, which does not provide for a power of review, cannot
exercise such power of review and yet it has been held that when fraud
or misrepresentation is demonstrated the Scrutiny Committee can recall
its orders.
13. The relevant observations in the said judgments need to be
referred to. In the case of Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra), a division bench of this Court while considering
such a situation held as follows :
12. It is settled proposition of law that fraud vitiates every solemn act.
If a candidate practices fraud upon the Scrutiny Committee and the
earlier validity is granted on account of the fraud practiced upon it,
14 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
then in such a case the Scrutiny Committee is not denuded of its
power to correct its own mistake and revisit its order. A person
guilty of fraud cannot claim any right derived to him on the basis of
an order obtained by fraud. Even otherwise, the respondent No. 6
has approached this court seeking directions against the respondent
- Scrutiny Committee to decide his complaint about issuance of
validity certificate to the petitioner on the basis of false and forged
documents. In the said writ petition the Scrutiny Committee made a
statement that it will decide the complaint within four months as
such it was not necessary for this court to pass separate order and
disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 6. It is in these
circumstances, the Scrutiny Committee has revisited its order
granting validity to the petitioner.
14. It is brought to our notice that Special Leave Petition filed against
the said order was dismissed by the Supreme Court in Shakila Begum
Faiyyazuddin Vs. State of Maharashtra ; 2018 SCC OnLine SC 2989 , thereby
confirming the said order of the High Court.
15. In the case of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde Vs. State of Maharashtra
and Ors. (supra) a Division Bench of this Court in this context observed
as follows :
7. In this matter, it is alleged that the validation certificates
have been obtained by the near relations of petitioners by
misrepresenting the Committee or by withholding
material facts from the Committee. It is alleged in the
application, by the Scrutiny Committee, that the
certificates have been obtained by practising fraud upon
the Committee. Since the allegation of fraud has been
made by the Scrutiny Committee, in the application, it
would be open for the Committee to issue notices setting
out grounds for taking up such of those matters for
reconsideration. The Scrutiny Committee shall issue
proper notices setting out the grounds and reasons which
necessitates reconsideration of validation claims and
after receiving replies from the concerned validity
holders, the Committee may reconsider the claims within
15 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
para meters of law laid down by this Court in various
judgments.
16. It is relevant to note that Special Leave Petition (C)
No.9594/2013 challenging the said order of the High Court was
dismissed by an order dated 25.10.2013, thereby, confirming the
said order.
17. In the case Sangita Sharad Kolse Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others (supra), again while considering the aforesaid question was to
the power available to the Scrutiny Committee to recall its own order, it
was held as follows :
27. Since the candidate had obtained an order validating her
caste by suppressing the material information of her
conversion to Christianity and the said order validating her
caste claim had been obtained by practising fraud on the
respondent Scrutiny Committee, according to us the
respondent Scrutiny Committee was clothed with the inherent
jurisdiction of exercise of powers of review. The order of the
respondent Scrutiny Committee subsequently invalidating the
caste claim of the petitioner on grounds of fraud cannot be
said to be an order without jurisdiction.
18. In the case of Vishnu Rajaram Thakar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another (supra), another Division Bench of this Court
held as follows :
9. There is, however, one aspect which needs to be clarified.
It is about the availability of statutory power of review
with the Scrutiny Committee. It has been held in several
judgments that the Scrutiny Committee has no power of
review, there being no provision expressly conferring it
on the Scrutiny committee. In the case of Devendra
Gurunath Khedgikar Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
16 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
Scrutiny Committee, Pune and Anr. 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 433
= 2009(2) ALL MR 869, the Division Bench has laid
down that a quasi Judicial authority cannot review its
own order unless the power of review is expressly
conferred by the Statute on it and that the power of
review not being an inherent power, the Scrutiny
Committee would have no power to review its own order.
At the same time, it is also held that the principle of
"finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of
such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in
the hands of dishonest litigants. Therefore, it is also held
that if there is any playing of fraud or suppression of
material facts or misrepresentation of facts, the Scrutiny
Committee can reconsider the order of validity passed by
it earlier and upon consideration of merits of the matter,
it confined to aspects of fraud, suppression or
misrepresentation of facts, it can recall it's order. Similar
is the view taken in the case of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde
(supra), relied upon by the learned AGP. It holds that
whenever there is an order obtained by playing fraud or
by suppressing material facts or misrepresenting the
facts, the Scrutiny Committee shall have the power to
reconsider its order. This is also the view taken by the
Division Bench of this Court at Aurangabad in the case of
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra and
Anr. in Writ Petition No. 5160 of 2012 decided on 17 th
December, 2012 [2012 MhLJ Online 132] fairly referred
to us by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
19. In the case of Farha Ashfaqali Shaha Vs. Member Secretary
and Research Officer, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (supra), it was
held as follows :
11. It is no good saying that the Scrutiny Committee cannot
review its order. This is not a case of review but a
request to recall an order which is a product of fraud or
misrepresentation of facts. Surely such a power is
inherent in the power to decide or adjudicate a dispute
and pass an order. If the initial order is a product of
fraud, then, equally there is a power to recall such order.
17 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
Therefore, the Scrutiny Committee shall not allow the
parties to raise any technical issues on its competence
and jurisdiction to verify the complaint and pass an order.
20. It is relevant to note that the Division Bench in the case
of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) did
consider the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and the
judgment of the Supreme Court arising out of the said order of this Court.
It is relevant to note that the Supreme Court in the case of Rajeshwar
Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) referred to the finding of
this Court and thereupon observed as follows :
"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 the writ petition and observed as
under:-
"In our opinion, petitioner has willfully misled the Scrutiny
Committee for securing the validity certificate wrongfully.
The 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 realizing the fraudulent act of the
petitioner, the Committee proceeded to recall its earlier
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 recall its earlier order even in the
absence of specific provision enabling the Committee to
exercise powers of review."
18 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
8. Hence the present Appeal by Special Leave.
9. We have heard Mrs. Meenakshi Arora learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Arun R. Pedneker, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
10. Mrs. Meenakshi Arora, put heavy reliance on the decision of
this Court in Dattu vs. State of Maharashtra; (2012) 1 SCC
549 and Shalini vs. New English High School Association &
Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 526. We have carefully examined the
ratio decided by this Court in the decisions referred to
hereinabove.
11. In the instant case, the appellant claimed to be a member of
scheduled tribe on the basis of false statements and false
affidavits submitted by him. At the same time indisputably in
the 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,
validity certificate was issued by the Scrutiny Committee on
19.06.2010. 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
recalled its earlier order dated 19.6.2010, whereby validity
certificate was issued in favour of the appellant."
21. The learned counsel for the petitioners indicated that the
facts of the case in Rajeshwar Baburao Bone Vs. State of Maharashtra
(supra) were distinguishable, because the tribe claim of the brother of the
appellant therein had been invalidated by the Committee in an earlier
order which was suppressed. Such are not the facts in the present case
and hence a distinction is sought to be made.
22. But, we are of the opinion that the above quoted portions of
the orders of various Division Benches of this Court do indicate an
19 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
apparent cleavage in views. We find that the concern expressed by the
division benches of this Court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar
Umbarje Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and particularly Bharat Nagu
Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), is well founded to the
effect that if a blanket power of recall is bestowed upon the Scrutiny
Committee despite the fact that the Act of 2000 does not provide a power
of review, there is a possibility of indiscriminate or rampant use of such
power, which would destabilize and upset the claims of the individuals
belonging to the same family. But, that in itself cannot be the basis to
hold that in no circumstances can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its
inherent power of recalling its earlier order, which has been obtained on
the basis of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It
cannot be countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of
validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud,
misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed
subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases. It is also
relevant to note that the Scrutiny Committee is better equipped to
examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it has
some powers akin to those of a civil court, as compared to this Court
exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The purity of the process, once found to be polluted has to be dealt with
and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration
that need to be authoritatively settled by a larger bench of this Court.
20 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
Hence, we take recourse to Rule 9(A) of the Bombay High Court
Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to formulate questions to be answered by a
larger bench in the light of apparent conflict in the aforementioned views
of various division benches of this Court. The questions are as follows:
i. Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of
2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is
vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material
facts ?
ii. Being a creature of the statute i.e. the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny
Committee does not have power of substantive review due to
absence of any such provision under the said statute, but does
it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to
recall its own order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation
or suppression of material facts ?
iii. If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of
recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the
contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied so
that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is avoided ?
iv. Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking
leave of the High Court, in the light of the stipulation in
Section 7(2) of the Act of 2000 ?
21 942.WP.8316.25+.odt
v. Whether the judgments of Division Benches of this Court in the
cases of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra) and Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra), need to be revisited to the limited extent
indicated above ?
23. The papers pertaining to these cases be placed before the
Hon'ble Chief Justice for decision by a larger bench on the questions
formulated herein above.
24. Ordered accordingly.
(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
habeeb/
