High Court
Legal Reasoning
Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 2 ::2.The learned Advocate for the applicant submitsthat, there is error apparent on the face of record. The error isin the nature of not considering the judgment cited by thepetitioner in the Writ Petition in support of his claim that whenhis blood relations, namely father, uncle and two sisters wereholding the validity certificates, the applicant ought to havebeen granted validity to his caste certificate. He would furthersubmit that, there are host of authorities including some, towhich one of us is a party, holding that the claimant would beentitled to have validity certificate when his blood relations holdthe validity certificates and those certificates remainedundisturbed. According to learned Advocate, mere issuance ofnotice to show case after reopening of the cases of theapplicant's blood relations does not amount to recall of thosecertificates. He has also submitted that, in response to thenotice issued to one of the blood relations of the applicant, therelative has approached this Court in Writ Petition. This Courthas granted interim relief directing the Committee to continuewith the enquiry, but not to pass final order therein. He wouldfurther submit that in rejoinder affidavit, the applicant had reliedon the judgment of one Dhananjay Bagul and specifically Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 3 ::averred the observations therein. According to him, this Courtdid not advert to the said authority and this amounts to an errorapparent on the face of record. He meant to say that, all thesubmissions advanced by the learned Advocate for thepetitioner had in fact not been addressed by this Court.3.He would further submit that, this Court relied onparas 22 and 23 of the judgment of the Apex Court in case ofMaharashtra Adivasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs.State of Maharashtra & ors. (2023 SCC OnLine 326). Hespecifically adverted to the words "due and proper enquiry"appearing in para 22 of the said judgment. He would furthersubmit that, the validity certificate granted to the applicant'sblood relations, were issued by the Committee after holding afullfleged enquiry in terms of Rule 12 of the MaharashtraScheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes andSpecial Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance andVerification of) Caste Certificate Rules (hereinafter referred toas the Rules). He has also relied on the judgment of theDivision Bench in case of Anil Shivram Bandawar Vs.District Caste Certificate Verification Committee & anr. Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 4 ::[ 2021 (6) Bom.C.R. 635 ] to submit that, it is very easy to averor plead fraud but difficult to prove the same. According tohim, suppression of fact if unintentional, would not take colourof fraud. According to him, while the aunt of the petitioner wasgranted validity, some contra entries were before the ScrutinyCommittee. He meant to say that, those validity certificateswere granted after considering the entire material on record.The applicant did not have any reason to suppress anymaterial from the Scrutiny Committee. He would further submitthat, the caste claim of the applicant's aunt was takenexception to by one of the villagers who was in the fray ofVillage Panchayat elections. The matter had reached thisCourt and on remand of the matter, the validity certificate wasgranted in favour of the applicant's aunt. The learnedAdvocate reiterated that all the validity certificates of the bloodrelations of the applicant stated hereinabove, are intact and,therefore, in view of the judgment in case of Dhananjay Baguland other number of authorities relied on and even referred toin the judgment by this Court, speak of granting validitycertificate to the concerned claimant, at least conditionally.4.The learned A.G.P. and the learned Senior Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 5 ::Advocate for the intervener would submit that, it is not a caseof review of the judgment and order. The applicant has comewith a change of learned Advocate. The learned A.G.P. reliedon the judgment in case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs.Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & ors. [2009 (1) Mh.L.J. SC 1]to submit that, it is open to the Committee to take a differentview if a case of fraud is detected while granting the validity toa blood relative of the claimant before it. The learned A.G.P.would further submit that, in review jurisdiction, prayer for grantof conditional validity could not be considered.5.We have considered the submissions advanced.Perused the authorities relied on. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Codeof Civil Procedure speaks of review of judgment and order infollowing cases. “1. Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal isallowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal isallowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court ofSmall Causes,
Arguments
Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 1 ::IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADREVIEW APPLICATION NO.51 OF 2025 INWRIT PETITION NO.400 OF 2024Rushikesh Bibhishan Bodhwad … PETITIONERVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra & ors. … RESPONDENTS.......Mr. Mahesh Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for applicant Mr. P.K. Lakhotia, A.G.P. for R.No.1 to 4Mr. S.B. Deshpande, Senior Counsel i/byMr. Shrinivas Salunke, Advocate for R.No.5....… CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT ANDSANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.DATE : 13th JUNE, 2025ORAL ORDER :Heard. The applicant herein was the originalpetitioner in Writ Petition (No.400/2024). By this application,he seeks review of the judgment and order of us, dated26/3/2025, upholding the order of the Tribe Certificate ScrutinyCommittee, refusing to grant validity to the tribe certificate ofthe applicant.
Decision
Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 6 ::and who, from the discovery of new and importantmatter or evidence which, after the exercise of duediligence, was not within his knowledge or could notbe produced by him at the time when the decree waspassed or order made, or on account of some mistakeor error apparent on the face of the record, or for anyother sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review ofthe decree passed or order made against him, mayapply for a review of judgment to the Court whichpassed the decree or made the order.”6.The gist of the submissions of the learnedAdvocate for the applicant is as to non-consideration of theauthoritative pronouncements of this Court and Apex Court forat least granting conditional validity when the blood relations ofthe concerned claimant hold validity certificates. Thissubmission was very much made by the learned Advocatethen appearing in the Writ Petition. We were very muchconscious of this submission. The authorities relied on werevery much on our mind, but we did not refer to them in detail inour judgment since we were of the view that the Apex Court, inpara 22 of the judgment in case of Maharashtra Adivasi ThakurJamat Swarakshan Samiti (supra) has observed that, “If it isestablished that the validity certificate has been grantedwithout holding a proper inquiry or without recording reasons,obviously, the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot validate thecaste certificate only on the basis of such validity certificate of Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 7 ::the blood relative”. The Committee had found that, the originalschool record of the applicant's father was not placed beforethe Committee. Rule 11 of the Rules mandates the applicantto place before the Committee school record of his father.Admittedly, the same has not been done in the present case.It has already been observed that, the school record of thefather of the applicant disclosed his caste as Kashari, whichfalls in O.B.C. category. The Committee, on appreciation ofthe material before it, found that, there were number of contraentries and even interpolation in the school record of theapplicant's uncle and father. In short, the Scrutiny Committee,on appreciation of the entire material on record before it, cameto the factual finding and it found that the validity granted to theblood relations of the applicant were required to be reopened.On reappreciation of the said entire material by us, we were atone with the findings recorded by the Scrutiny Committee. Inour considered view, the same is permissible in view of theobservations in para 22 of the aforesaid judgment, besides theobservations in the judgment of Apex Court in case of RajuVasave (supra). In short, based on the entire material onrecord, the Scrutiny Committee came to its conclusion and wedid affirm while deciding the Writ Petition. Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 8 ::7.The learned Advocate would submit that the recordof Kashari caste was very much available while the claim ofthe petitioner’s aunt was under consideration before theScrutiny Committee. He meant to say that, the validity wasgranted to his aunt after holding a fullfleged enquiry. It is anadmitted fact that the applicant had not relied on the validitycertificate of his aunt before the Scrutiny Committee.8.We are conscious of the fact that, fraud is verydifficult to prove and it is one who propounds the same toprove the same. It is not the case of the applicant that there issome other material which would vouch for his claim. Theentire material was before the Scrutiny Committee. Theapplicant had every opportunity to meet it. We reiterate that, inthe facts and circumstances of the present case, we did notfind it to be a fit case to grant the applicant a conditionalvalidity. Those submissions were very much there on our mindwhile deciding the Writ Petition. 9.For all the aforesaid reasons, the ReviewApplication stands rejected. 10.Learned Advocate for the applicant urged for Review Appln. No.51/2025:: 9 ::continuation of the interim relief which was granted in the WritPetition. Both the learned A.G.P. and learned Senior Advocateopposed the prayer. 11.The applicant is said to have been selected for thepost of Deputy Director, Agriculture. He proposes to assail thisorder. Therefore, we are inclined to continue the interim relieffor a period of four weeks. It is, however, made clear that,this interim relief was not granted by this Court in the ReviewApplication. While the Writ Petition was dismissed, the interimorder that was in operation in the Writ Petition, was allowed tobe continued until 12th June 2025 only with a view to enablethe applicant to approach the higher forum. Even this Courtwas not aware of the applicant to have filed the ReviewApplication. It was posed as if the interim order was passed orcontinued in Review Application. We do not wish to addanything more. The interim relief to continue for a period offour weeks. (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.) (R.G. AVACHAT, J.) fmp/-