Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: false certificate in Vinod.K.S vs State Election Commission on 15 September, 2021Matching Fragments
to mean an officer or team of officers belonging to the Anthropological Wing in the KIRTADS. Section 2(n) defines Scrutiny Committee to mean a Committee constituted by the Government by notification under Section 8 to perform the functions of the Scrutiny Committee under the Act for such areas or for such purpose as may be specified in the notification. Section 5 says that community certificate is to be issued only by the competent authority. Section 8 deals with constitution of Scrutiny Committee for verification of community certificates. Section 11(1) deals with cancellation of false community certificate issued and it reads thus;
11. Cancellation of false community certificate. -
(1) Where, before or after the commencement of this Act, a person not belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes has obtained a false community certificate W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 & to the effect that either himself or his children belongs or belong to such Caste or the Tribe, the Scrutiny Committee may either suo motu or on a written complaint or report by any person or authority, call for the records and enquire into the correctness of such certificate and if it is of the opinion that the certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by order, cancel the certificate after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making a representation, if any.
8. A review petition can be preferred with the Government under Section 12(4), whereby any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Government under Section 11(2) may seek review of the order. The contention of the counsel is that having regard to the statutory provisions, there is no power available to the 3 rd respondent to withdraw a certificate which has already been issued. Reference is also made to Rule 9 of the Rules. Rule 9 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of the community certificate. A detailed procedure has been laid down regarding enquiry to be conducted into the community status. The counsel referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Vijayan P.S. & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. reported in [2013 (2) KLT 488]. The Division Bench considered the question whether community certificate issued by the competent authority can be cancelled under Section 11 of the Act, on the mere finding that the person in whose favour the certificate was issued does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. The Court held that cancellation of a false community certificate W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 & requires the Scrutiny Committee to apply its mind to (i) whether the false community certificate was issued by the Competent Authority to a person not belonging to a Scheduled Caste, (ii) whether such person had obtained fraudulently a false community certificate either for himself or for his children and before cancelling a false community certificate, the person concerned should be given an opportunity for making representation to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee will have to render specific findings on such facts. Section 11 is the only provision in the Act dealing with cancellation of a false community certificate, which includes a certificate fraudulently obtained. It is hence submitted that the order of the 3rd respondent whereby the certificate which was already issued has been withdrawn is not legally correct and is liable to be set aside. The Division Bench had also found that till the community certificate is cancelled in accordance with law, it remains valid. The only other provision which deals with cancellation of a certificate is Section 8(a) of the Act, which says that where, on verification, the Scrutiny Committee finds that community certificate W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 & issued is not genuine, it shall cancel the same. The said provision does not apply to false community certificates, but to bogus or fake community certificates which are not genuine.
18. In the case on hand, the order Ext.P5 does not conclusively find that there has been fraud. What is stated is that there was a complaint that the certificate issued to the petitioner was on misrepresentation which was enquired into by the Village Officer, Idukki, who has reported that the petitioner had converted into Christianity and hence the community certificate stating she belongs to Hindu Pallan community is wrongly issued. After stating about the above reports, the order further says that a detailed investigation is to be conducted into the issue and hence the certificate is "temporarily withdrawn". It cannot be said that by Ext.P5, the authority has reviewed its earlier order, on the ground of established fraud, and can be understood only as a withdrawal of an W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 & order on allegations of fraud. It is in this context that the power under Section 11 of the Act has to be considered. Section 11 of the Act specifically contemplates such situations and empowers the Scrutiny Committee to go into the question whether the certificate was obtained fraudulently and to cancel the same if it is found to have been obtained fraudulently. Going by the statutory provisions and the decisions which say that fraud vitiates every action, it can be seen that a conclusion that an order has been obtained by fraud and that it is vitiated is possible only after an enquiry into the matter and such enquiry is very much within the powers available to the Scrutiny Committee and not to the person who has issued the certificate. It is not a case where an inherent power of review needs to be exercised, particularly since the power to cancel a false certificate has been specifically bestowed on the Scrutiny Committee created under the Statute, with all the necessary powers of enquiry. It is to be noticed that even the response filed on behalf of the State says that there is no power available in the statute to withdraw a community certificate which has been issued, by the officer who W.P.(C)Nos. 29165 & issued the certificate. In the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ext.P5 is not legally sustainable.