Ravindra Dadaji Garud vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 November, 2023

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Ravindra Dadaji Garud vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 1 November, 2023

Bench: G. S. Kulkarni

2023:BHC-AS:35607-DB
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Vidya Amin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 8822 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20081 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17536 OF 2022

Bharat Nagu Garud
Age 54 years, R/o Omkar, Plot No. 26
Saraswati Nagar, Near Bali Mandir,
Rasbihari Link Road, Panchavati, Nashik ..Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary
Tribal Development Dept And Ors.

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Nashik Division, Nashik

3. Additional Chief Secretary
(Revenue, Stamp Duty & Registration)
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai

4. Inspector of General of Registration &
Control of Stamp, Pune

5. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baglan Sub-Division
Tahsil Baglan, Dist. Nashik .. Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9071 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20092 OF 2022
Pravin Rohidas Garud
Age 40 years, R/o Utrane, Tahsil Baglan,
District Nashik .. Petitioner

Page 1 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Tribal
Development Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baglan Sub-Division
Tahsil Baglan, Nashik

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalwan Sub-Division
Tahsil Kacheri Campus, Nashik

5. Zilha Parishad Nashik, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Nashik .. Respondents
And
Jan Jaati Kalyan Aashram, Nashik ... Applicant

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9072 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20093 OF 2022
Ramdas Nagu Garud,
Age 58 years, R/o Vakratunda Niwas,
pandurang Nagar, Vinchoor,
Tahsil Niphad, Dist. Nashik .. Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Maharashtra Through. Its Secretary, Tribal
Development Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baglan Sub-Division
Tahsil Baglan, Nashik

4. Tahsildar, Baglan, Tahsil Kacheri Campus,
Tahsil Baglan Dist. Nashik

Page 2 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

5. Zilha Parishad Nashik, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Dist. Nashik .. Respondents

And

Jan Jaati Kalyan Aashram, Nashik ... Applicant

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9073 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20094 OF 2022
Rohidas Nagu Garud,
Age 67 years, R/o utrane, Tahsil Baglan,
District Nashik .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Under Secretary
Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baglan Sub-Division
Tahsil Baglan, Nashik

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalwan Sub-Division
Tahsil Kacheri Campus, Nashik

5. Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies,
Beglan A.P.M.C. Market Yard,
Tahsil Baglan, Dist. Nashik

6. Utrane Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari
Sanstha Maryadit, through its Secretary,
Tahsil Baglan, Dist. Nashik .. Respondents
And
Jan Jaati Kalyan Aashram, Nashik .. Applicant

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9074 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20101 OF 2022
Page 3 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Priyanka Ramdas Garud @
Mrs. Priyanka W/o Yogesh Manmat
Age 31 years, R/o Vakratunda Niwas,
Pandurang Nagar, At post Vinchoor,
Tahsil Niphad, Dist. Nashik .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Under Secretary,
Tribal Development Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baglan Sub-Division
Tahsil Baglan, Nashik

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalwan Sub-Division
Tahsil Kacheri Campus, Nashik .. Respondents
And
Jan Jaati Kalyan Aashram, Nashik .. Applicant

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9075 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 20096 OF 2022
Nilima Rohidas Garud @
Mrs. Nilima W/o Sachin Nikam
Age 34 years, R/o Utrane, Tahsil Baglan
Dist. Nashik .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Tribal
Development Dept. Mantralaya Mumbai

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Nashik Division, Nashik

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baglan Sub-Division
Tahsil Baglan, Nashik

4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalwan Sub-Division
Tahsil Kacheri Campus, Nashik .. Respondents
And
Page 4 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Jan Jaati Kalyan Aashram, Nashik .. Applicant

AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 8513 OF 2022
1. Umakant Balbhim Sarjerao
Age 54 years, R/o Village and Post Barloni
Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

2. Rohidas Jalindar Sarjerao
Age 40 years, R/o Ganeshnagar, Kurduwadi
Tq. Madha, Dist. Solapur

3. Jagruti Nandkumar Sarjerao
Age 34 years, R/o A-14, Trupti Corner,
Modikhana Solapur, Dist. Solapur

4. Pratap Dattatray Sarjerao
Age 45 years, R/o Survey No.650, 1/4, Pokle
Vasti Bibwewadi, Pune

5. Suvarna Dattatray Sarjerao
Age 42 years, R/o Survey No.650, 1/4, Pokle
Vasti Bibwewadi, Pune .. Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra through itse Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032

2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrtiny Committee,
Pune, Division Pune

3. Collector, Solapur

4. Shri. Sant Goroba Kaka Vidyalay, through its
Secretary, Saundana, Tq. Kalamb, Dist Osmanabad

5. Survase High School And Jr. College, through its
Secretary, Asara Society, Hotgi Rd, Solapur
District Solapur.

6. Maharashtriya Mandal's, through its
Page 5 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Secretary, Cap. Shivrampant Damale Prashala,
Veer Savarkar Nagar, Gultekdi, Pune ... Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13292 OF 2022
(Not on Board, taken on board)

Kishor Tryambak Bhamare ... Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13403 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 16750 OF 2023
Hemant Kashinath Gavali ... Petitioner
Versus
State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary ... Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 13645 OF 2023
Rajeshwar Wamanrao Aher
Age 53 years, R/o Adim Bramhanandnayak,
Plot No. 7, Shree Samarth Colony, Shanti Nagar,
Panchavati, Nashik .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Maharashtra Through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya Mumbai
2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Comittee,
Nashik .. Respondents
__________

Mr. Ravindra Adsure a/w Mr. Yash Sonawane, for the Petitioners in WP
No.8822/2022, WP/9071/2022, WP/9072/2022, WP/9073/2022,
WP/9074/2022 & WP/9075/2022.
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar a/w Ms. Komal Gaikwad, Ms. Sarika Mendadkar, Mr.
Siddhant Sawai, for Petitioner in WP No.8513/2023, WP
No.13403/2023, WP/115/2023 and WP/13292/2022.
Mr. Vivek V. Salunkhe i/b. Mr. Dinesh R. Shinde for the petitioner in WP
No.13645 of 2023.
Ms. Priyanka Shaw for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in WP/8513/2022.
Mr. Nitin Gangal, Spl. Counsel a/w Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP a/w Ms. P. N.
Page 6 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Diwan, AGP for State.
Ms. S.S. Bhende, AGP for the State in WP/13645/2023.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar for Intervenor/Applicants in IA/20081/2022,
IA/20092/2022, IA/20093/2022, IA/20094/2022, IA/20101/2022.
__________

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE : NOVEMBER 01, 2023.

Judgment (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.):-

1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By

consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. These are ten petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India. Each of these petitions assail orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee constituted under 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 (for short, "2000

Act"), whereby the Caste Scrutiny Committee by exercising a suo motu

power of review has recalled the earlier orders granting validity to the

tribe/caste certificates of the petitioners.

Page 7 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

3. As these petitions involve common questions of law they are being

decided by this common judgment.

4. The petitioners in these petitions belong to Scheduled Tribes- Koli-

Mahadeo, Thakur and Thakar respectively. They were issued tribe/caste

certificates by the concerned designated officers depicting that they belong

to the said Scheduled Tribes. The tribe/caste certificates were validated by

the Caste Scrutiny Committee many years back as may be discussed in the

later part of the judgment. The question which arises for consideration is

as to whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee as constituted under the

2000 Act would have jurisdiction to "suo motu review" its past orders

granting Caste Validity Certificates to the petitioners.

5. It is not in dispute that many years back, Caste Validity Certificates

were granted to the petitioners, under the orders passed by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee. Also the petitioners had altered their position

having acted upon the Caste Validity Certificates, inter alia in regard to

securing employment, education facilities etc. Thus, after long years of the

validity being conferred by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to the

petitioner's tribe/caste certificates, such decision granting validity to their

tribe/caste certificates was sought to be reviewed by the Caste Scrutiny

Page 8 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Committee, resulting in revocation/recalling such orders granting validity

to the tribe/caste certificates of the petitioners.

6. For convenience, we divide this batch of petitions into two groups.

The first batch of petitions raise a challenge to the orders passed by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee recalling the earlier decision granting validity to

the tribe/caste certificates issued in favour of the petitioners. The second

group of petitions challenge a show cause notice issued by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee calling upon the petitioners as to why in exercise of

the suo motu powers of review, the orders granting validity to the

tribe/caste certificates of the petitioners be not recalled.

7. The first batch of petitions are:-

(i) Writ Petition No. 8822 of 2022 (Bharat Nagu Garud vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.),

(ii) Writ Petition No. 9071 of 2022 (Pravin Rohidas Garud vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.),

(iii) Writ Petition No. 9072 of 2022 (Ramdas Nagu Garud vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.),

(iv) Writ Petition No. 9073 of 2022 (Rohidas Nagu Garud vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.),

(v) Writ Petition No. 9074 of 2022 (Priyanka Ramdas Garud @
Page 9 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Mrs. Priya W/o. Yogesh Manmat vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.),

(vi) Writ Petition No. 9075 of 2022 (Nilima Rohidas Garud @
Mrs. Nilima W/o. Sachin Nikam vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.).

8. It would be necessary to briefly note the relevant facts in each of

these petitions.

(i) Writ Petition No. 8822 of 2022
(Bharat Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

9. The petitioner in this petition is in the employment of

Government of Maharashtra with effect from 22 June, 1993. As on date,

he is holding the post of a Joint District Registrar (Class I), Mumbai

Suburban District. He belongs to Koli-Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. A

tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Tahsildar, Balgan, dated 12th

May 1992. The petitioner had applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee

for obtaining validation of the tribe/caste certificate as per the 2000 Act.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 14 th January 2005 had

issued a caste validity certificate to the petitioner. Such decision at all

material times has remained in operation during the petitioner's

employment.

10. However, by the impugned order dated 13 th May 2022, the Caste
Page 10 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Scrutiny Committee purportedly exercising powers of review has set aside/

recalled its order dated 14th January 2005, whereby validity of the

tribe/caste certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. The caste

validity certificate has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

after a period of 16 years as assailed in the present petition.

(ii) Writ Petition No. 9071 of 2022
(Pravin Rohidas Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

11. The petitioner in this petition joined the service as a Shikshan

Sevak at the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Ghatalbari on 29 th May,

2003 and he is currently serving as a Graduate Teacher with Zilla Parishad

Primary School at Nalwadi. He belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe

caste. A tribe/caste certificate dated 14 th March 2000, was issued to him

by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalvan. The petitioner applied to the Caste

Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the tribe/caste certificate.

The Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 9 th September 2005

granted caste validity certificate to the petitioner. At all material times,

such order/validity of the tribe/caste certificate had remained valid for the

purposes it was issued and as permissible. By the impugned order dated

13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee exercising suo motu powers

of review, has set aside/recalled its order dated 9th September 2005, by

which validity of the tribe/caste certificate was granted in favour of the
Page 11 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

petitioner. Thus, the caste validity certificate has been cancelled by the

Caste Scrutiny Committee after a period of 16 years and which is assailed

before us in this petition.

(iii) Writ Petition No. 9072 of 2022
(Ramdas Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

12. The petitioner in this petition joined employment as a Primary

Teacher at the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Gazarwadi on 26 th

December, 1983. On 31st December, 2021, he superannuated from the

post of Headmaster from Zilla Parishad Primary School at Nandgaon. He

belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was

issued to him by Tahsildar, Baglan dated 29th August 1981. The petitioner

had applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of

the tribe/caste certificate. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order

dated 29th November 2012, granted a caste validity certificate dated 7 th

December 2012 to the petitioner which at all material times remained in

operation. By the impugned order dated 13 th May 2022, the Caste

Scrutiny Committee suo motu exercising powers of review, has set

aside/recalled its order dated 29th November 2012, whereby validity of the

tribe/caste certificate has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee,

after a period of 10 years which is being assailed in this petition.

(iv) Writ Petition No. 9073 of 2022
Page 12 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

(Rohidas Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

13. The petitioner in this petition was in employment as a Member,

Utrane Gram Panchayat for the term of 2010-2015. He belongs to Koli

Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe caste. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him

by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalvan dated 1st June 2010. The petitioner

applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the

tribe/caste certificate as per the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Caste

Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 20 th May 2011, granted a caste

validity certificate dated 25th May 2011 to the petitioner, which at all

material times had remained in operation. By the impugned order dated

13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee exercising powers of a suo

motu review, has set aside/recalled its order dated 20 th May 2011, whereby

validity of the tribe/caste certificate as granted in favour of the petitioner

has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after a period of 11

years as assailed in this petition.

(v) Writ Petition No. 9074 of 2022
(Priyanka Ramdas Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

14. The petitioner in this petition belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled

Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Sub-Divisional

Officer, Kalvan dated 18th June 2007. The petitioner applied to the Caste

Scrutiny Committee so as to obtain a validity of the tribe/caste certificate

Page 13 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

as per the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by

an order dated 20th September 2008, granted a validity certificate to the

petitioner, which at all material times remained in operation. By the

impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee suo

motu exercising powers of review has set aside/recalled its order dated 20 th

September 2008, whereby validity to the tribe/caste certificate was granted

in favour of the petitioner, after a period of 14 years. Such order of the

Caste Scrutiny Commitee is assailed in this petition.

(vi) Writ Petition No. 9075 of 2022
(Nilima Rohidas Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

15. The petitioner in this petition belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled

Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Sub-Divisional

Officer, Kalvan dated 31st March 2005. The petitioner applied to the Caste

Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the said certificate as per

the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by an

order dated 9th September 2005 granted a caste validity certificate to the

petitioner, which at all material times had remained in operation. By the

impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee

exercising suo muto powers of review has set aside/recalled its order dated

9th September 2005, whereby validity of the tribe/caste certificate as

granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Caste

Page 14 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Scrutiny Committee after a period of 17 years, which has been assailed in

this petition.

16. Having noted the facts of each of the petitions,we may now advert

to the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners.

17. The challenge as mounted by the petitioners to the impugned

orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, is primarily on the ground

that the Caste Scrutiny Committing has no jurisdiction to review its orders

much less to exercise any suo motu review powers, so as to reopen a

concluded validity certificates granted in the past, and in the present case

after many years of the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In

supporting such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly

relied on a recent decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case

of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra,

through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Anr. 1 It is

submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has examined the

provisions of the 2000 Act as also the position in law and has held that

even in the case of fraud, the Caste Scrutiny Committee which exercises

quasi judicial power, has no jurisdiction to suo motu review its past

decisions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the

1 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1013
Page 15 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. Government

of Delhi2 to contend that the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot assume

suo motu jurisdiction to review its previous orders when such jurisdiction

has not been conferred by law.

18. Ms. Diwan, learned Assistant Government Pleader who initially

represented the State, has also not disputed the position in law as

helddown by this Court in the said decision specifically on the

interpretation of the provisions of 2000 Act, and more particularly when

the Court has held that considering the provisions of the 2000 Act the

Caste Scrutiny Committee would not have jurisdiction to exercise any

review powers. Ms. Diwan, has not brought to our notice any decision

which by any different interpretation of the 2000 Act, would displace the

said position in law as held in the decision of this Court in Rakesh

Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra) case.

19. Later on Mr. Gangal, learned Special Counsel has appeared and has

made submissions on behalf of the State. In opposing these petitions he

would submit that the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners that

the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to suo motu review the

proceedings, ought not to be accepted. It is his contention that the Caste
2 2019 SCC 416
Page 16 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Scrutiny Committee has "inherent jurisdiction" to review its own order. In

support of such contention, Mr. Gangal has placed reliance on the decision

of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Sangita Sharad Kolse vs. State

of Maharashtra & Ors.3, Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs. The

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune & Anr.4, Vishnu

Rajaram Thakar vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal

Development Dept. & Anr.5 and J. Chitra vs. District Collector and

Chairman, State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu & Ors.6

20. Mr. Gangal would next submit that in respect of the petitions as

filed by the members of Garud family, the observations of the Supreme

Court in its judgment dated 10 December, 2021 in case of Rushikesh

Bharat Garud vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 7 are relevant. Mr.

Gangal, however, has stated that the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud

clearly stands on a different footing and would be required to be separately

heard and is not part of the present proceedings.The submission of Mr.

Gangal referring to the said judgment of the Supreme Court is to the effect

that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was under an obligation to reopen the

cases of these petitioners belonging to the Garud family. This contention
3 2006(5) ALL MR 565
4 2009(2) ALL MR 869
5 Writ Petition No. 647 of 2022 decided on 9 March, 2022
6 (2021) 9 SCC 811
7 Civil Appeal No. 7442 of 2021
Page 17 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

of Mr. Gangal is without prejudice to the contention, that the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has inherent jurisdiction to reopen the cases and

exercise power of review.

21. Mr. Gangal has also drawn our attention to an order passed by the

Supreme Court in case of Nilima Rohidas Garud & Ors. vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Anr.8 another member of the Garud family wherein the

Supreme Court has held that the subsequent order passed by the

appropriate authority is a new cause of action and as and when the fresh

proceedings are initiated challenging the subsequent order, the same are

required to be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits

and all the contentions and/or defences, which may be available to the

respective parties were kept open to be considered by the High Court and/

or appropriate forum before whom the proceedings are initiated. Nilima

Rohidas Garud is one of the petitioners before the Court in the present

proceedings.

22. Mr. Gangal thus relying on such order passed by the Supreme

Court has submitted that there is a direction to the Caste Scrutiny

Committee to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on its own

merits on the basis of the material available on record. It is submitted that

8 Miscellaneous Application No. 888 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 8825/2022
Page 18 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

the petitioners hence, are precluded from urging an issue as to the

jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopen the cases of the

petitioners.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners responding to the submissions

as urged on behalf of the State, would submit that the contentions on

behalf of the State are totally untenable. Firstly, it is his submission that

the Scrutiny Committee which is a creature of the statute would not

possess a review jurisdiction, much less to suo motu review its order. It is

submitted that it is a well settled principle of law as laid down in catena of

judgments, that the power of review is required to be conferred by lawand

that there cannot be an inherent power vested in the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, to exercise a review jurisdiction. It is his submission that if

such contention as urged on behalf of the State Government is accepted, it

would bring about a regime of total uncertainty and/or an open licence to

Caste Scrutiny Committee to revisit and re-open concluded cases. It is his

submission that such is not the object of the legislation. In support of his

submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the Court's

attention to the provisions of the 2000 Act and consideration of these

provisions in the recent decision of this Court in Rakesh Bhimashankar

Umbarje (supra), Anil s/o. Shivram Bandawar vs. District Caste

Page 19 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli & Anr. 9 and Naresh

Kumar & Ors. (supra).

24. The rival contentions have arisen for our consideration.

Analysis and Conclusion:-

25. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the petitioners in the first

batch of petitions were granted tribe/caste certificates between the period

1992 to 2005. The caste certificates had undergone enquiry by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, inasmuch as by orders passed by the then Caste

Scrutiny Committee's, the petitioners were granted tribe validity certificate

between the year 2005 to 2012. It is almost after 16 years in three cases

and about 10 to 11 years in other cases, a show cause notice came to be

issued to the petitioners by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to suo motu

reopen the validity, which was granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

to their caste / tribe certificates. Consequent thereto by the impugned

orders which are passed about a year back, the validity to the petitioner's

Caste / tribe certificates granted by the original orders has been cancelled

and the caste validity certificates of the petitioners have been invalidated.

9 2021(5) Mh. L.J. 345
Page 20 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

26. In the present proceedings the petitioners are protected by interim

order dated 29 July, 2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court

(Coram : Dipankar Datta, C.J., as His Lordship then was & M.S. Karnik,

J.). The interim orders have continued to operate.

27. Before we dwell on the legal issue, a bird's eye view of the relevant

dates in the first group of petitions, in relation to each of the petitioner's

caste certificate, the validity being initially granted by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, the date of the show cause notice and the date of the

impugned orders can be noted in the following tabular statement:

Name of the petitioner Date of Caste Date of Validity Date of SCN Date of Review W.P. No. &
Certificate Certificate for Review Invalidation Filing Date
Order
Bharat Nagu Garud 12.05.1992 14.01.2005 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 8822/2022
dt. 13.7.2022
Pravin Rohidas Garud 14.03.2000 09.09.2005 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9071/2022
dt. 13.7.2022
Ramdas Nagu Garud 29.08.1981 07.12.2012 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9072/2022
dt. 13.7.2022
Rohidas Nagu Garud 01.06.2010 25.05.2011 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9073/2022
dt. 18.7.2022
Priyanka Ramdas Garud 18.06.2007 20.09.2011 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9074/2022
dt. 21.7.2022
Nilima Rohidas Garud 31.03.2005 09.09.2005 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9075/2022
dt. 21.7.2022

28. It is clear from the above chart that the Caste Validity Certificate

granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was sought to be suo motu

reopened by Caste Scrutiny Committee, by issuing show cause notices in
Page 21 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

question after a long long lapse of time. This was oblivious to the fact that

from the period validity was granted, the parties had certainly changed

their position inasmuch as the employment benefits, educational benefits

etc., were availed by the petitioner, which were enjoyed by them for last

more than 15 years as noted above. For eg. in case of Bharat Garud, he is

in employment and is about to retire in two years. In the case of Petitioner

Ramdas Nagu Garud has already superannuated. The case of other

petitioners is also not different.

29. In the above circumstances, the issue which arises for our

consideration and more particularly considering the scheme of 2000 Act,

is as to whether it was permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to

issue show cause notices to the petitioners exercising suo motu review

jurisdiction, so as to review the decision taken by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee's in the years 2005, 2011 and 2012, granting validity to the

tribe/caste certificates, as granted in favour of the petitioners so as to

invalidate the earlier decisions. It would also be necessary to consider

whether it was permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is a

quasi-judicial committee, to reopen such cases after such long lapse of time

or on an allegation of fraud having being practiced by the petitioners in

obtaining the caste validity certificates.

Page 22 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

30. In so far as the jurisdiction of a quasi judicial authority to exercise

review powers is concerned, in our opinion, the reliance of the petitioner

on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar &

Ors. Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (supra), is quite apposite. In such

decision the Supreme Court, although in the context of an award under

the Land Acquisition Act and whether there would be a power to review

the award, reiterated the well-settled principle of law, that the power of

review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. The

Supreme Court observed thus:

"13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyuman Singhji
Arjunsinghji, Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh
Gupta vs. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa vs. Commr.
Of Land Records & Settlement and Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar
Jain, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent
power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by
necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/
Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a
creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from
the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any
statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without
jurisdiction."

31. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil s/o Shivram

Bandawar (supra), was confronted with an issue as to whether the Caste

Scrutiny Committee would have any statutory power either under the

2000 Act or the Rules framed thereunder to "re-examine" a Caste Validity

Certificate already issued. The Court referring to an earlier decision in the

Page 23 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

case Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee

& Ors.10, observed as under:-

"6. We find that it was not permissible for the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to have re-examined the caste certificate and Caste
Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner on the grounds on which it
was so sought to be so re-examined as stated in the show cause notice.
It is undisputed that there is no provision either in the Act of 2000 or
the Rules framed thereunder to re-open/re-examine the matter of
issuance of a Validity Certificate by it. This aspect as regards absence
of statutory power to do so stands concluded by the decision of this
Court in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra). It has been held in clear
terms that merely because a different view on the same facts could be
arrived at, the same would not entitle the Scrutiny Committee dealing
with a subsequent caste-claim to reject such claim. As stated above it is
on the basis of fresh material in the form of old revenue records of the
year 1920-24 that the exercise of re-examining the Caste Validity
Certificate was undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee. We thus find
that in absence of any statutory power either under the Act of 2000 or
the Rules framed thereunder to re-examine a Caste Validity
Certificate already issued, the exercise undertaken by the Scrutiny
Committee pursuant to the show cause notice issued by it was
without jurisdiction."

32. In Akash Sanjay Gawali v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. 11 a

Division Bench of this Court held that the Court had repeatedly stated

that Caste Scrutiny Committee did not have a suo motu power of review,

as such power was not conferred by the statute, also none could be so

inferred. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are required to

be noted with read thus:-

"7. We find it surprising that we have to repeatedly state that this
committee has no Suo motu power of review. None is conferred by
statute. None can be necessarily inferred. The impugned order is
entirely without jurisdiction."

10 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 401
11 Writ Petition No. 2305 of 2020 dated 2 February, 2020
Page 24 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

33. In Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra), a Division Bench of this

Court of which one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, was confronted

with a similar issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny

Committee to review its own orders. This decision takes into

consideration the entire scheme of the said Act and more particularly the

provisions of Sections 6, 7, 9 and 15 of the Act, so as to examine whether

the 2000 Act conferred any review jurisdiction on the Caste Scrutiny

Committee, which itself is a statutory body, being the creature of the 2000

Act. . The Court after examining the scheme of the legislation and the

purport of these provisions, categorically held that the legislature

consciously 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. It was observed

that, in fact, this would defeat the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 7

of the 2000 Act. It was also observed that it cannot be countenanced that

a Caste Scrutiny Committee assumes jurisdiction to review its orders

merely on a complaint filed by any person and upset any earlier orders

passed by it which would lead to an absurdity and not recognized by the

legislation. The relevant observations of the Court in some detail are

required to be noted which read thus:-

Page 25 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

"15. In the above circumstances, the issue which would fall for our
consideration is whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee at all had
jurisdiction to review its own decision granting caste validity
certificate to the petitioners, including those granted under orders
passed by this Court.

16. In this context, we need to examine the legislation under
which the Caste Scrutiny Committee is constituted and is required to
exercise its jurisdiction. The legislation is 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. The Act provides for the regulation of the issuance and
verification of the caste certificates to the persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta
Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
Section 2 of the Act deals with the definitions such as caste certificates,
competent authority, scrutiny committee, etc.

17. Section 4 of the Act requires the caste certificates to be issued
by the competent authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act
states that a caste certificate issued by any person, officer or authority
other than the competent authority shall be invalid. The caste
certificate issued by the competent authority shall be valid only
subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the
Scrutiny Committee. Section 5 of the Act deals with the provisions of
appeal in case any person is aggrieved by an order of rejection of an
application passed by the competent authority under sub-section (1)
of Section 4 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act deals with the verification
of caste certificates by a Scrutiny Committee.

..........

21. The scheme of the Act as noticed from the aforesaid provisions
would reveal that it would be the exclusive jurisdiction of the Caste
Scrutiny Committee to consider the application for a caste validity
certificate as provided for in Section 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 7
clearly provides that the orders 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
Constitution of India. Thus, against any order passedby the Caste
Scrutiny Committee, 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.

22. We need to observe that there ought not to be any confusion
between the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 7 and what has

Page 26 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

been provided in sub-section (2), for the reason that sub-section (1)
deals with a situation that where, before or after the commencement
of the Act, a person not belonging to any Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other
Backward Classes or Special Backward Category has obtained a false
'Caste Certificate' (not a validity certificate) to the effect that either
himself or his children belong to such Castes, the Scrutiny Committee
in such an event and in relation to the caste certificate, may suo motu,
or otherwise call for the record and enquire into the correctness of
'such certificate' (caste certificate) and if it is the opinion that the caste
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, and
communicate the same to the concerned person and the concerned
authority, if any.

23. When sub-section (1) of Section 7 uses the word caste
certificate necessarily, the meaning of the same is required to be
derived as per the definition of the caste certificate as contained in
Section 2(a), which defines caste certificate to mean a certificate issued
by any person, officer or authority other than the Competent
Authority shall be invalid. The Caste Certificate issued by the
Competent Authority shall be valid only subject to the verification
and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.

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 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

Page 27 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

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 subsection (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 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

Page 28 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

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 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.

31. It cannot be countenanced that a Caste Scrutiny Committee
assumes jurisdiction to review its orders merely on a complaint filed
by any person and upsets the earlier orders passed by it. Thus, the
proposition, as canvassed by the learned AGP, would lead not only to
an absurdity but the proposition totally untenable in law and not
recognized by the legislation.

32. Our above observations also find support in Akash Sanjay
Gawali (supra), wherein it was held that:

"6. The action of 2nd Respondent committee prima facie
appears to be vindictive. It is also completely illegal. This
committee has no suo motu power of review. In case after case,
it seems to rely on a general principle that 'fraud vitiates
everything' without realising the implications of this or how
that fraud is to be detected, ascertained, proved and results
based on such a finding. Perhaps this committee has no idea
how difficult it is to actually prove fraud. A failure of proof is
not fraud. That so-called 'fraud' must arise in the proceeding
before it. It cannot be invoked like some mantra to confer on
oneself a power of review over orders passed many years
earlier, and which no one has called into question, about

Page 29 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

which there is no lis or proceeding, and which have all
attained finality. This is so basic a concept in law that we are
surprised that the committee is so utterly oblivious to it. To be
plain: no one ever assailed the petitioner's father's and uncles'
validity certificates on any ground. The committee had no
power to suo motu re-open those validity certificates and call
them into question. The committee's orders are not purely
ministerial to admit of the narrow exception to the general
rule that there is no inherent power of review.

7. We find it surprising that we have to repeatedly state
that this committee has no suo motu power of review. None is
conferred by statute. None can be necessarily inferred. The
impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction.

8. This is also a case of the 2nd respondent committee
inviting extreme censure for wholly overreaching this Court.
Only because this Court in its order of 13 December 2018 in
Writ Petition No. 10194 of 2018 entered a caveat that should
the certificates of the uncles or father be recalled or set aside
then the petitioner could not get any benefit, the 2nd
respondent committee could not have seen this as an
opportunity to go ahead and do something that was entirely
outside its jurisdiction."
(emphasis supplied)

33. It can be clearly noticed that it has been a consistent view in
various decisions that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no
jurisdiction to review its own orders. There is no dispute whatsoever
on this proposition and the Courts would be required to adhere to
the mandate of what has been provided for in law i.e. sub-section (2)
of Section 7 that the challenge to any decision taken under the Act
by the Caste Scrutiny Committee can only be challenged before the
High Court by Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. Furthermore, it is a settled position in law
that when substantive provisions are clear, such jurisdiction cannot
be conferred by any subordinate legislation or by any executive fiat.

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."

34. Despite the above clear position as held by this Court, Mr. Gangal,

learned special counsel for the State would submit that although the
Page 30 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

provisions of the 2000 Act, do not expressly confer any power on the

Caste Scrutiny Committee to review its own orders, nonetheless the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has "inherent jurisdiction" to review its own orders.

In support of such contention, Mr. Gangal has placed reliance on the

decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sangita Sharad Kolse

(supra), which is a decision prior to the decision of the Division Bench in

Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale (supra). After such decision, there are several

decisions of this Court which has taken a consistent view that the statute

(2000 Act) does not confer any powers of review on the Caste Scrutiny

Committee and once such powers of review are not conferred, in such

event, it cannot be held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee can exercise

review jurisdiction on any other parameters, including on the issue of

fraud. Thus, in our opinion, the decision of the Division Bench in Smt.

Sangita Sharad Kolse (supra) would not assist Mr. Gangal.

35. Mr. Gangal has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme

Court in J. Chitra (supra) to contend that the Caste Scrutiny Committee

would have a review jurisdiction. We are afraid to accept such contention,

for the reason that the Supreme Court in this judgment, has in fact,

referred to the very genesis of the 2000 Act which emanates from the

decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and

Page 31 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & ors. 12. In

paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has

categorically observed that "the order passed by the Committee shall be

final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of

the Constitution". The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph

10 as relied by Mr. Gangal are not in regard to reopening of an inquiry or

any power of review being conferred on the Caste Scrutiny Committee in

relation to re-examining the "validity" of the past decisions of the Caste

Scrutiny Committee, but the same are in relation to the reopening of

inquiry into "tribe/caste certificates" if they are vitiated by fraud when they

were issued without proper enquiry. The observations of the Supreme

Court in paragraphs 8 and 10 need to be noted which read thus:-

"8. In Dayaram, this Court was of the view that the Scrutiny
Committee is an administrative body which verifies the facts and
investigates into claims of caste status. The orders of the Scrutiny
Committee are open to challenge in proceedings under. Article 226
of the Constitution of India. It was further held by this Court that
permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals
would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils
which this Court wanted to eradicate. It was observed that the entire
scheme in Madhuri Patil will only continue till the legislature
concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification
of claims for caste status as SC/ST. It was made clear that verification
of caste certificates issued without prior inquiry would be verified by
the Scrutiny Committees. Such of those caste certificates which were
issued after due and proper inquiry need not to be verified by the
Scrutiny Committees.

10. In the instant case, an inquiry was conducted by the District-
Level Vigilance Committee which has upheld the community

12 (1994) 6 SCC 241
Page 32 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

certificate in favour of the appellant. The decision of the District-
Level Vigilance Committee in the year 1999 has not been challenged
in any forum. The recognition of the community certificate issued in
favour of the appellant by the District Vigilance Committee having
become final, the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have
jurisdiction to reopen the matter and remand for fresh consideration
by the District-Level Vigilance Committee. The guidelines issued by
G. O. No. 108 dated 12-09-2007 do not permit the State Level
Scrutiny Committee to reopen cases which have become final. The
purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is
to avoid false and bogus claims. Repeated inquiries for verification of
caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reopening of inquiry into caste
certificates can be only in the case they are vitiated by fraud or when
they were issued without proper inquiry."

36. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Chitra's case is

certainly not an authority which would hold that the Caste Scrutiny

Committee has an inherent jurisdiction to exercise review powers and

more particularly considering the observations that the re-opening of the

enquiry can be only of the tribe/caste certificate and not Caste Validity

Certificate as observed in paragraph 10 of the said decision.

37. Mr. Gangal's next contention is to the effect that the judgment of

the Supreme Court in Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs. The State of

Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) permitted the Caste Scrutiny Committee to

reopen the cases of all these petitioners. It is difficult to agree with Mr.

Gangal. Mr. Gangal however fairly submits that the case of Rushikesh

Bharat Garud is itself an independent case, in which he has challenged

the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also it is conceded
Page 33 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

that although his case is from same family it was not a case where review

jurisdiction was being exercised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He

would also fairly state that the independent writ petition filed by

Rushikesh Bharat Garud questioning the decision as taken by the Caste

Scrutiny Committee in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court

in the said judgment would require independent adjudication. However,

the emphasis of Mr. Gangal is on the observations of the Supreme Court

as made in paragraphs 4 to 5. To appreciate the contentions of Mr.

Gangal, it would be necessary to note the orders passed by the Supreme

Court in the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud which reads thus:-

"1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11536 of 2021, by which
the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the
appellant herein in which the appellant herein challenged the order
passed by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik
(for short, 'Scrutiny Committee'), invalidating the caste certificate
issued to the appellant, the original writ petitioner has preferred the
present appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned Advocate
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned Advocate
appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the Scrutiny Committee.

3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High
Court, it appears that before the High Court the appellant heavily
relied upon the validity certificates issued to his father Bharat Nagu
Garud dated 14.01.2005 as well as to his cousins - Nilima Rohidas
Garud dated 9.9.2005; Pravin Rohidas Garud dated 9.9.2005;
Priyanka Rohidas Garud dated 20.09.2005; Rohidas Nago Garud
dated 25.05.2011; and Ramdas Nagu Garud dated 07.12.2012. The
aforesaid was also the case of the appellant herein before the Scrutiny
Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee while not accepting
the above submission observed that when the appellant's father's
Page 34 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

caste claim was considered, 35 contradictory entries were not placed
before the Scrutiny Committee. Neither were the original validity
certificates relied upon by the appellant produced nor the genealogy.
The Scrutiny Committee made identical observations regarding other
validity certificates to the effect that the adverse entries were not
placed on record. However, the fact remains that at the relevant time
those caste certificates were not cancelled by the Scrutiny Committee.

4. Be that at it may. Now, it is the case on behalf of the appellant
that the cases of the father of the appellant and his cousins have been
re-opened and show cause notices have been issued to show cause
why their caste certificates be not cancelled. Therefore, the validity of
the caste certificates in favour of the father of the appellant and in
favour of his cousins is at large before the Scrutiny Committee.
Therefore, it will be appropriate if the cases of all, namely, father of
the appellant, cousins of the appellant and the appellant herein be
considered together, to avoid any conflicting orders.

5. In view of the above and without expressing anything on the
validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant, we set
aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court
and remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the
validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant afresh
along with the cases of his father and his cousins, namely, Bharat
Nagu Garud, Nilima Rohidas Garud, Pravin Rohidas Garud,
Priyanka Rohidas Garud, Rohidas Nago Garud and Ramdas Nagu
Garud. The Scrutiny Committee to pass fresh order/s in accordance
with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the material
available on record and/or that may be produced and pass a speaking
order at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from
today.

6. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that this Court has not
gone into the merits of the case at all and has not observed anything
on the validity of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant.

7. The present appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)

38. It is clear from the reading of paragraph 4 of the above orders of the

Supreme Court, that as to what has been observed is only to note the case

of the appellant therein ( namely of Rushikesh Bharat Garud) that the
Page 35 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

cases of the father of the appellant and his cousins had been re-opened and

show cause notices were issued to show cause why their caste certificates

be not cancelled. It is in such context, the Supreme Court observed that

the validity of the caste certificates in favour of the father of the appellant

and in favour of his cousins is at large before the Caste Scrutiny

Committee and therefore, it would be appropriate if the cases of all,

namely, father of the appellant, cousins of the appellant and the appellant

(Rushikesh Bharat Garud) be considered together, to avoid any conflicting

orders. It is on such observations as made in paragraph 4 of the said

Judgment of the Supreme Court, in paragraph 5, the Supreme Court has

proceeded to observe that without expressing anything on the validity of

the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant therein (Rushikesh

Bharat Garud), the order of the High Court be set aside and the

proceedings remanded to the Scrutiny Committee to consider the validity

of the caste certificate issued in favour of the appellant (Rushikesh Bharat

Garud) afresh, along with the cases of his father and his cousins, namely,

Bharat Nagu Garud, Nilima Rohidas Garud, Pravin Rohidas Garud,

Priyanka Rohidas Garud, Rohidas Nagu Garud and Ramdas Nagu Garud

(the petitioners herein). In such context, it was further directed that the

Scrutiny Committee would pass fresh orders in accordance with law and

on its own merits and on the basis of the material available on record, that

Page 36 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

may be produced and pass a speaking order at the earliest, preferably

within a period of three months from the date of the said order. Further in

paragraph 6 of said orders passed by the Supreme Court, at the cost of

repetition it has been observed that the Court has not gone into the merits

of the case at all and has not observed anything on the validity of the caste

certificate issued in favour of the appellant therein.

39. Considering such categorical observations as made by the Supreme

Court in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in Rushikesh Bharat Garud's case, it is

difficult to accept Mr. Gangal's submission that the Supreme Court has

permitted the Caste Scrutiny Committee to exercise powers of review in

the case of the petitioners herein because they belong to Garud family. To

read the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 in

the manner as suggested by MR. Gangal, in our opinion is not the correct

reading and understanding of the orders passed by the Supreme Court.

Also to accept Mr. Gangal's submission that such observations of the

Supreme Court amounts to the Supreme Court recognizing powers of

review being vested with the Caste Scrutiny Committee would be little too

far-fetched.

40. Mr. Gangal has next drawn our attention to further orders passed by

the Supreme Court on 25 February, 2022 on Miscellaneous Application
Page 37 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

No. 339 of 2022 in Rushikesh Bharat Garud's case. It would be necessary

to note the said order which reads thus:-

" ORDER

Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties, we extend the time by further period of six weeks
to complete the proceedings by the appropriate Authority. However,
it is made clear that the applicant shall not raise objection with
respect to jurisdiction and the time is extended at the instance of the
applicant so that sufficient opportunity is given to the applicant to
submit the case on merits.

With this, the present application stands disposed of."

41. Reading of the above order would also show that the same is passed

only in Rushikesh Bharat Garud's case, these orders in no manner can be

construed, so as to be made applicable to the cases of the petitioners

herein, and to have a consequence, that the petitioners were precluded

from raising any objection as may be available to them in law, to question

the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to exercise review

powers. We, therefore, reject Mr. Gangal's contention relying on the

further orders dated 25 February, 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in

case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud. This apart, there is something significant

which can be seen from the cumulative reading of paragraph 5 of the

Supreme Court's order in Rushikesh Bharat Garud's case in as much as

paragraph 5 refers to the case of Nilima Rohidas Garud, who is one of the

petitioners in the present batch of petitions. In Nilima Rohidas Garud's
Page 38 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

case, the Supreme Court having made observations in paragraph 5 in

Rushikesh Bharat Garud's case, passed an independent order on 20 May,

2022 in the proceedings of Miscellaneous Application No. 888 of 2022 in

SLP(C) No. 8825 of 2022, wherein when Nilima sought to approach the

Supreme Court in such proceedings, the Supreme Court in such order

observed that Nilima Rohidas Garud had a new cause of action and

therefore, the said application cannot be entertained. However, what is

significant is the observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph 2 of the

said order namely, 'as and when the fresh proceedings are initiated

challenging the subsequent order, the same be considered in accordance

with law and on its own merits and on which all contentions and/or

defences, which may be available to the respective parties, are kept open to

be considered by the High Court and/or appropriate forum before whom

the proceedings were initiated.' The said order is required to be noted

which reads thus:-

" ORDER

The subsequent order passed by the Appropriate Authority is
a new cause of action. Therefore, the present application is not
entertained.

As and when the fresh proceedings are initiated challenging
the subsequent order, the same be considered in accordance with law
and on its own merits. All the contentions and/or defences, which
may be available to the respective parties are kept open to be
considered by the High Court and/or appropriate forum before
whom the proceedings are initiated.

Page 39 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

With this, Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of."

42. The case of Nilima Rohidas Garud is before us in the present

proceedings (Writ Petition No. 9075 of 2022). In our opinion, all

contentions of Mr. Gangal relying on Rushikesh Bharat Garud's case are

put to rest, considering the above orders passed by the Supreme Court in

Nilima Rohidas Garud's case, which would also indicate that it was never

intended in the observations as made in paragraphs 4 and 5 in Rushikesh

Bharat Garud's case, that the Caste Scrutiny Committee is permitted to

exercise review powers in the case of the petitioners, to reopen the validity

certificates, already granted many years back.

43. In view of the above discussion, we are quite clear that a consistent

view has been taken in several decisions of this Court that the Caste

Scrutiny Committee is not conferred with any jurisdiction to review its

own decisions. In fact, the very genesis of the Caste Scrutiny Committee

culminating into the 2000 legislation is the decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. (supra), which has

categorically held that the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee

shall only be subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article

226 of the Constitution. Thus, if the contention as urged on behalf of the

Page 40 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

State is accepted, it would amount to, firstly nullifying the said dictum of

the Supreme Court that the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny

Committee shall be only subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution; and secondly, an inroad to the

finality of the orders of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, not provided by the

2000 Act would be required to be recognized.

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

Page 41 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

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
Page 42 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

statutory body exercising quasi adjudicatory functions, would not have

any jurisdiction to suo motu verify the past records and initiate an action

to reopen past decision and invalidate the caste validity certificates already

granted. If an inherent power of review is to be read in the provisions of

the 2000 Act, it would lead to a monumental uncertainty and absurdity in

the functioning of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, as it can be at the ipse

dixit of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopen concluded cases. This

would lead to patent arbitrariness. For such reasons, it is not possible to

come to a conclusion that any inherent power of review is available with

the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

47. This apart as noted above, in the decisions as rendered by this

Court, it has been consistently held that there is no jurisdiction as

conferred by the 2000 Act on the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review its

own order either on an application or suo motu. The nature of

adjudication as undertaken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is certainly

quasi-judicial in nature where admittedly there is an enquiry after hearing

the parties (including hearing a third party/complainant) and after

considering the vigilance report and the documentary and oral evidence, a

decision is required to be taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the

absence of a Caste Scrutiny Committee, such powers to make any such

Page 43 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

declaration to the caste certificate, could only be wielded by the Civil

Court. Thus, certainly a caste scrutiny committee is exercising such vital

jurisdiction, which otherwise would have been exercised by a civil court.

Even from such perspective, it cannot be held that any inherent powers of

review are conferred on the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Even otherwise

considering the nature of functions of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the

legislature itself has avoided to confer any review powers which could have

been conferred by the legislature, as observed by the Division Bench of

this Court in Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra). Even when a review

jurisdiction is conferred by law on Courts, it is circumscribed by strict

rules, namely, adjudicating any review proceedings on the touchstone of

the principles as contained in Code of Civil Procedure and as also the

applicability of the law of limitation . It is thus difficult to accept the case

as urged on behalf of the State that the Caste Scrutiny Committee would

be a body which is beyond the applicability of any restriction and rules,

which are necessarily applicable to bodies conferred with review

jurisdiction.

48. For the above reasons, we are not persuaded to accept any of the

contentions as urged by Mr. Gangal so as to read any review jurisdiction

being conferred on the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to review the past

Page 44 of 54
-------------------------
01 November, 2023

::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::
WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

decisions, when the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee either

rejecting the validity or granting validity is only subject to jurisdiction of

this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

49. In the light of the above discussions, the petitions need to succeed.

Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The impugned decision(s) of the Caste Scrutiny Committee in each of these writ petitions recalling the earlier decision granting validity of the tribe/caste certificate to the petitioners and invalidating the caste certificate are quashed and set aside.

(ii) Consequentially, the original orders granting caste validity certificate in favour of each of the petitioners stand restored, the benefit of which the petitioner would be entitled.

         (iii)    Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

         (iv)      No costs.

50. In view of the above decision, we are not inclined to adjudicate on any contentions raised by the applicants/intervenors in their Intervention Page 45 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt Applications. We keep open all their contentions to be asserted in the appropriate proceedings. These Interim Applications accordingly stand disposed of.

51. Judgment on the second group of petitions which are:-

(i) Writ Petition No. 8513 of 2022 (Umakant Balbhim Sarjerao & Ors.

vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.),

(ii) Writ Petition No. 13403 of 2023 (Hemant Kashinath Gavali vs. State of Maharashtra),

(iii) Writ Petition No. 13292 of 2022 (Kishor Tryambak Bhamare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.),

(iv) Writ Petition No. 13645 of 2023 (Rajeshwar Wamanrao Aher vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.).

52. These petitions raise similar issues as decided by us in our above decision namely that the Caste Scrutiny Committee would not wield any review jurisdiction. The only difference being that the challenge of the present proceedings is to show-cause-notices issued to the petitioners calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why in exercise of its review jurisdiction, the decision as taken in each of the these cases granting 'caste validity certificates' in favour of the petitioners be not recalled.

Page 46 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

53. For completeness, we may refer to the relevant facts in each of these petitions.

(i) Writ Petition No. 8513 of 2022 (Umakant Balbhim Sarjerao & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

54. This petition has been filed on behalf of petitioners who were issued Caste Certificates as belonging to Thakar caste (Scheduled Tribes). Such Caste Certificates were subject matter of proceedings filed by the petitioners before the Caste Scrutiny Committee praying for their validation. The Caste Scrutiny Committee passed final orders granting validation of the caste certificate to the petitioners. The relevant details of the caste certificate and validity certificate as granted to the petitioners and which are now sought to be reopened by show cause notice as issued to the petitioners can be set out in a tabular form as under:

Name of the petitioner Date of Caste Date of Validity Date of SCN for Review Certificate Certificate Umakant Balbhim Sarjerao 25.01.2001 06.06.2004 10.04.2019 Rohidas Jalindar Sarjerao 06.11.2000 20.11.2004 10.04.2019 Jagruti Nandkumar Sarjerao 31.05.2004 10.08.2005 10.04.2019 Pratap Dattatray Sarjerao 07.08.2003 26.09.2005 10.04.2019 Suvarna Dattatray Sarjerao 03.11.2000 10.02.2006 10.04.2019

(ii) Writ Petition No. 13403 of 2023 (Hemant Kashinath Gavali v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

55. The petitioner in this petition belongs to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Page 47 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt Tribe. He was granted tribe/caste certificate dated 22 nd October 2001 by Executive Magistrate, Malegaon, Nashik. He moved the Caste Scrutiny Committee seeking validity of his tribe/caste certificate. After a vigilance enquiry and considering the evidence on record, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a caste validity certificate dated 2 nd November 2005 to the Petitioner belonging to Mahadeo Koli Scheduled Tribe. Such validity certificate had remained valid and in operation for almost about 18 years till the time the validity so conferred by the caste scrutiny committee was sought to be questioned by respondent nos. 3 and 4 who filed a complaint on 15th February 2023 and 20th February 2023 against the petitioner before the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Respondent nos.3 and 4 alleged that the Caste Scrutiny Committee needs to invalidate the tribe claim of his nephew and niece, Parth Gavali and Shruti Gavali, and on the basis of whose caste validity certificates, the petitioner had obtained a Petroleum Retail Outlet Dealership on 13th February 2017. On such reasons, the complainant requested the Caste Scrutiny Committee to cancel the petitioner's caste validity certificate. On such complaint being received, the Caste Scrutiny Committee orally intimated to the petitioner of issuance of a show cause notice, and called upon the petitioner to remain present for a personal hearing on 9th March 2023. The Petitioner accordingly remained present for a personal hearing along with his Page 48 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt Advocate and pointed out that no show cause notice was received by him from the office of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee hence handed over the show cause notice dated 9 th November 2022 to the petitioner at the time of hearing and directed the Petitioner to submit his say. The petitioner also requested the entire file of petitioner granting validity certificate and next hearing was scheduled on 29 th March 2023. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present proceedings inter alia contending that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to issue such a show-cause-notice, so as to exercise a review jurisdiction and reopen the orders granting validity to the petitioner's caste certificate on 2nd November 2005.

(iii) Writ Petition No. 13292 of 2022 (Kishor Tryambak Bhamare v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

56. The petitioner belongs to Thakur Scheduled Tribes, who was issued a caste certificate dated 28th August 2000 by the competent authority. He moved the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validity to his tribe/caste certificate. The Caste Scrutiny Committee considering the petitioner's case, issued a caste validity certificate dated 15 th April 2005 to the Petitioner, as belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee despite grant of caste validity certificate to the Page 49 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt petitioner, had passed orders to invalidate the tribe certificate of petitioner's nephew, namely, Akshay Dhananjay Bhamare and niece Kum. Manasi Dhananjay Bhamare and on such premise, issued to the petitioner the impugned show cause notice dated 3rd April 2019 alleging that grant of caste validity certificate to the petitioner was based upon suppression of facts.

57. It is seen from the record that Akshay Dhananjay Bhamre and Ms. Mansi Dhananjay Bhamre have approached this Court in the proceedings of Writ Petition No.5111 of 2019, in which the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 25th July 2019 had directed the Caste Scrutiny Committee to provide a certificate of validity for his immediate educational needs. It may also be noted that in such orders, the Court had referred to a show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner, who was a relative of Akshay Bhamre and Mansi Bhamre from the paternal side. The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 28 th May 2019 to the said show cause notice, contending that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no power to review its own order. However, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a second show cause notice dated 22nd September 2022, without considering the Petitioner's reply dated 28 th May 2019 to the first show cause notice. The petitioner again filed a detailed reply dated 27 th Page 50 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt September 2022 urging that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had no jurisdiction and/or power to review its earlier order of granting caste validity certificate, which was issued after following the due process of law. It is on such premise, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the show cause notice inter alia contending that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had no authority to issue such show cause notice, so as to invalidate the tribe/caste certificate already granted to the petitioner by its prior decision.

(iv) Writ Petition No. 13645 of 2023 (Rajeshwar Wamanrao Aher vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

58. This petition assails the legality and validity of the show cause notice dated 13th October 2023 issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner belongs to the Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate dated 28th July 2003 was issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik. The petitioner had instituted proceedings before the Caste Scrutiny Committee praying for validation of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. In such proceedings, the Caste Scrutiny Committee referred the petitioner's claim to its Vigilance Cell for conducting home and school inquiry which submitted its Vigilance Report dated 22 nd August 2003, justifying the petitioner's claim. Vigilance Cell Report was forwarded to the petitioner and the petitioner was granted an opportunity Page 51 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt of a personal hearing. Being satisfied with the documentary evidence, the Caste Scrutiny Committee passed an order dated 27 th May 2005 granting validity to the tribe/caste certificate issued to the petitioner. The Caste Scrutiny Committee issued a caste validity certificate dated 14 th June 2005 to the petitioner validating his caste certificate as belonging to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. Also after following due procedure, the Scrutiny Committee validated tribe claims of the petitioner's cousin brother (Prashant) and daughter (Shweta) who were issued certificates of Validity dated 9th March, 2009 and 18th June 2018 respectively. It is the case of the petitioner that despite there being three validity certificates from paternal side, the Scrutiny Committee by order dated 10 th July 2023 invalidated the tribe claim of petitioner's daughter Srushti Rajeshwar Aher and niece Prachi Prashant Aher. It is contended that being aggrieved by such orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, they have filed Writ Petition No. 12474 of 2023 which are pending. It is contended by the petitioner that on the basis of these orders, after a lapse of 18 years, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has issued the impugned show cause notice dated 13th October 2023 to the petitioner seeking to review/recall its orders granting validity to the caste certificate issued to the Petitioner in the year 2005. It is on such premise, the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the jurisdiction of the caste scrutiny committee to reopen Page 52 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt the petitioners concluded case after 18 years of the validity being conferred to the tribe/caste certificate as granted to the petitioner.

59. Thus, the issues of law as involved in these second group of petitions are not different from what has been decided by us in the first group of petitions in which we have categorically held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction, much less inherent jurisdiction to review its own decisions, as any decision as rendered by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution including issue on issues of any allegation of fraud.

60. We may also observe that in a given case any issue of fraud which is raised whether is a genuine issue or not, so as to direct reopening of the said case would be the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and it cannot be an ipse dixit of of the committee either suo motu or on a complaint to exercise any review powers so as to reopen concluded cases unless otherwise directed by the high Court.

61. Mr. Gangal had advanced common submissions even in the second group of petitions, so we do not repeat the contentions as we have referred to them in extenso in the foregoing paragraphs in deciding the first group of petitions.

Page 53 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 ::: WP8513_2022 & ORS-corrected.odt

62. It is thus clear that this batch of petitions are covered by our decision as rendered in the forgoing paragraphs, on the first group of petitions in Bharat Nagu Garud's case (supra) and other petitions. We, accordingly, allow these petitions in terms of the following order:-

ORDER

(i) The impugned show cause notices issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee seeking to recall the earlier decision granting validity of the caste certificate to the petitioners are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The original orders granting caste validity certificate in favour of each of the petitioners shall entail to the benefit of the petitioners.

Ordered accordingly.

(iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs."

(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) corrected as per speaking to minutes order dated 01.12.2023. Page 54 of 54

-------------------------

01 November, 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 01/12/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2024 17:09:03 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court