High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 wp 14732.23.odt finalIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.14732 OF 20231.Somnath Gorakh Bagul,age 63 yrs, Occ. Retired,R/o 56-b, Laxmi Nagar,Behind ITI College,Deopur Dhule, Dist. Dhule.2.Sonal Somnath Bagul,age 32 yrs, Occ. Nil,R/o 56-b, Laxmi Nagar,Behind ITI College,Deopur Dhule, Dist. Dhule.Petitioners.VERSUS1.The State Of MaharashtraThrough Tribal DeptartmentMantralaya, Mumbai.2.The Deputy Director,Caste Scrutiny Committee,Having office at Deopur,Tq. & Dist Dhule.Respondents ….. Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. M.R. Wagh AGP for Respondents No.1,2 : Mr. V.M. Jaware …..CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.Dated : January 08, 2024……JUDGMENT :- (Per S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.)1.Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heardfinally by consent of parties. 2 wp 14732.23.odt final The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated13.9.2023 passed by the respondent no.2-Caste ScrutinyCommittee, Dhule, by which the validity certificate granted infavour of the petitioners have been canceled and their casteclaim for “Thakur Scheduled Tribe” has been declared asinvalid and further directions are given to initiate actionagainst petitioner no.1 under the provisions of section 10 and11 of the Act of 2000. Further, directions are given to depositcaste certificate and caste validity certificates dated 12.1.2001and 9.6.2000 with the Committee within a period of eightdays.2.The petitioners contend that they are belonging to“Thakur Scheduled Tribe.” Consequently, the caste claim ofpetitioner no.1 was submitted for verification with theCommittee. The Committee vide order dated 12.1.2001validated caste claim of the petitioner and issued certificateno.DD/TCSC/NSK/DHU-SERV-467-97. Similarly, caste claimof the petitioner no.2 had been validated by the Committeeand validity certificate no. DD/TCSC/NSK/DHU/EDN-567-99/5745 had been issued in her favour by the Committee atNashik. The Committee, was referred with the caste validitycertificates of the petitioners while considering caste claim ofBhavana Yashwant Thakur. During hearing said claim, theCommittee issued show cause notice to the petitionersindicating that the Committee possess the powers of cancellingthe validity certificates on the ground of fraud or suppressionof material facts or misrepresentation. In response to such 3 wp 14732.23.odt finalnotice petitioners submitted detailed reply to the show causenotice and also filed on record several documents justifyingtheir caste validity for “Thakur Scheduled Tribe”. However, theCommittee under impugned order cancelled/recalled the castevalidity certificates after almost 20 years and directed tosurrender the same. Petitioner no.1 is now retired fromservice. Petitioner no.2 has completed her education.According to the petitioners, the Committee had wronglyassumed jurisdiction to cancel caste validity certificates thattoo after more than twenty years of it’s existence. The reasonsadopted by the Committee are nothing more than onassumptions, presumptions and surmises and inconsistent withvoluminous record supporting caste claim of the petitioners.3.Mr. M.R. Wagh, learned advocate appearing forthe petitioners vehemently submit that the Committee couldnot have exercised the powers of review in absence suchprovisions under the Act of 2000 or rules framed thereunder.He would submit that the Division Bench of this Court inrecent order dated 1.11.2023 passed in the group of writpetitions tagged with Writ Petition No.8822 of 2022 reiteratedthat the caste Scrutiny Committee cannot exercise suo-mottopowers of review and set aside/recall the validity certificateissued earlier. Mr. Wagh, would further submit that, the casteclaims of the petitioners have been considered by the thenCommittee in the year 2001 and, after due inquiry andinvestigation, validity was conferred upon them. Whileconsidering the claim of the blood relations namely BhavanaYashwant Thakur, vague show cause notices were issued 4 wp 14732.23.odt finalwithout assigning proper reasons for re-opening/re-calling ofthe caste validity conferred upon the petitioners. He wouldfurther submit that petitioners have not only justified thevalidity granted in their favour by then Committee, but alsoproduced voluminous documents justifying their caste claim.As such, he urges that the order passed by the Committee isliable to be quashed and set aside.4.Learned AGP vehemently supports the orderpassed by the Committee. He would submit that, in casevalidity certificate is found to be obtained by exercising fraudor misrepresentation, the Committee has adequate powers toreopen the inquiry pertaining caste validity certificate and inappropriate cases recall or cancel such validities. He wouldsubmit that the petitioners had obtained validity certificates bymisrepresentation and suppression of contra entries regardingtheir caste. Therefore, show cause notices were issued to theand after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing, theCommittee has concluded to cancel/recall caste validitygranted in favour of the petitioners.5.We have considered the submissions advanced bythe learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.Perused the documents submitted alongwith the petition soalso original record received from the Committee. Admittedly,both the petitioners were granted caste validity certificates for“Thakur Scheduled Tribe” by the competent committee on12.1.2001 and 9.6.2000 respectively. The petitioner no.1Somnath retired from service. Petitioner no.2 Sonal completed 5 wp 14732.23.odt finalher education. However, while considering caste claim ofblood relations, caste validity certificates conferred upon thepetitioners were relied as supporting evidence hencecommittee called record in files of petitioners. Thereafter inmonth of September 2019 Committee issued show causenotices to petitioners. The perusal of the committee’s orderdated 23.8.2019 or notes of proceedings dated 4.9.2019 woulddepict that no specific reasons have been mentioned as to whythe Committee took the decision to reopen inquiry in respect ofvalidity granted in favour of the petitioners. It simply statesthat the Committee possess powers to cancel/recall validitycertificates obtained by exercise, fraud or by misrepresentation.Therefore, the petitioners shall show cause as to why the castevalidity granted in their favour shall not be canceled orrecalled.6.It appears that petitioners caused their appearancebefore the Committee and submitted a detailed representationdated 5.11.2019 and raising objection to reopening of inquiryin the matters of validity certificates granted to them. Thepetitioners denied relationship with the persons who werefound to have contra entries as per vigilance report received bythe Committee. The petitioners have also relied upon thevarious judgments of this Court to contend that the Committeehas no jurisdiction to review the caste validity already grantedin favour of the petitioners. 7.In aforesaid factual background, the issue thatrequires consideration is ‘as to whether the Committee has 6 wp 14732.23.odt finaljurisdiction to review/reopen the inquiry into caste validitycertificates granted in favour of the petitioners.’ The petitionershave placed reliance upon the judgment dated dated 1.11.2023delivered by Division bench of this court in the matter of BharatNagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra and others in WP No.8822 of2022 (reported in 2023 SCC online Bom 2537) wherein it isobserved thus :-“there cannot be a free hand or a licenseto the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopenconcluded cases of validity being conferredby it by it’s earlier orders to be revisited orre-examined on a complaint or otherwiseand review its orders. This Court hasfurther observed that if an inherent powerof review is to be read in the provisions ofthe Act of 2000, it would lead to amonumental uncertainty and absurdity inthe functioning of the Caste ScrutinyCommittee, as it can be at the ipse dixit ofthe Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopenconcluded cases. This would lead topatent arbitrariness. For such reasons, it isnot possible to come to the conclusion thatany inherent powers of review is availablewith the Caste Scrutiny Committee”. 8. Pertinently Division Bench considered the legalposition in great detail. Even, the observations of the Supreme Courtin case of J. Chitra Vs. District Collector and Chairman State LevelVigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu & Ors. In Civil Appeal No.5160 of2010 have been considered alongwith statutory provisions under actof 2000 and rules and finding is arrived that the Committee possessno power to reopen the concluded claims. At this stage, the learnedthe AGP would submit that, in case, validity is obtained bymisrepresentation, suppression or fraud, the Committee cannot besaid to be powerless to withdraw/recall the validity certificates. He relieson observations of Supreme Court in case of Raju Ramsing Vasave 7 wp 14732.23.odt finalVs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others reported in (2008)9 SCC 54, to the effect that it would be permissible to reopenthe Scheduled Castes and Tribes validity certificates on thebasis of further developments, which warrant re-consideration,if it can be seen that the Scheduled Tribes status was wronglygranted. He submits that in case of Rajeshwar Bone vs State ofMaharashtra reported in (2015) 14 SCC 497 decision ofDivision bench of this court approving decision of committeeto reopen caste validity on ground of fraud has been upheld bySupreme Court when it was noticed that subject validity wasobtained suppressing invalidation of claim of real brotherwhich had attained finality up to supreme court. He has furtherrelied on pristine maxim which has never lost its temper overthe centuries “fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant” i.e. Fraud andjustice never dwell together. In words of lord Denning “nojudgment of court, no order of minister can be allowed tostand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravelseverything’ 9.Although, Division bench of this court concludedthat the Committee had no jurisdiction to review its own orderof granting caste validity under the scheme of act of 2000 andrules framed thereunder and we have no hesitation to concurwith the said view, but in light of material relied by learnedAGP, even assuming such powers are with the Committee toundo the fraud, we are inclined to examine whetherCommittee is justified to do so in facts of this case. Apparently,the petitioners were granted validity certificates in the year2000-2001 by the competent committee. The Committee 8 wp 14732.23.odt finalrecorded finding that the petitioners have obtained the validitycertificates by suppression of material facts as regards to contraentries in respect of blood relations. The Committee reliedupon contra entries in respect of the alleged blood relations ofpetitioners right from 1905 to 1922 indicating their casteentries as “Bhat”. According to the Committee, such entrieswere suppressed by the petitioners. The Committee observedthat such contra entries are revealed during verification of thecaste claim of Jagannath Gorakh Bhamare, who is real brotherof petitioner no.1 and Bhavana Yeshwant Bagul. Pertinently,the Committee has nowhere observed that petitioners wereaware about any such contra entry and they have intentionallysuppressed the same from the Committee. Perusal of theproceedings before the Committee no where depicts thatpetitioners were specifically called upon to explain any contraentry. The show cause notice was apparently sans reasons toreopen inquiry in to validated caste certificates. 10.Per contra, the petitioners have in fact placed onrecord the oldest document of 1877 in respect schooladmission of Bhagwan Ramsing, which records his caste as‘Thakur’. Said document has been verified by Vigilance Officerwhile dealing with the caste claim of the Rahul Thakur. Thereare no adverse remarks in respect of the said document. Thereare many other school entries from 1877 onward till 1932 inrespect of the blood relations of the petitioners, wherein theentry regarding ‘Thakur’ has been recorded. It is trite thatwhen the reliance is placed upon pre-constitutional documents,the oldest documents would fetch greater probative value. In 9 wp 14732.23.odt finalsuch case contra entries noticed in recent past would not haveoverriding effect over oldest pre-constitutional record whichneeds to be given precedence in the matter of appreciation ofevidence. Pertinently committee has not recorded cogentreason as to why the oldest record produced on behalf of thepetitioners is not worthy acceptance. In our considered viewwhen the Committee was dealing with caste validities alreadygranted to petitioners almost twenty years back, there was noscope of re-appreciation of the evidence like appellate forum.The petitioners cannot be asked repeatedly to reestablish theircaste only because his validity certificate is sought to be reliedby his blood relation in recent claim. One can understand thatthe Committee records glaring fraudulent instances and issuesshow cause notices to the validity holder calling hisexplanation. However, only because some contra material hasbeen discovered latter in point of time, the petitioners cannotbe called upon to explain such material or re-establish hisclaim. If such practice is permitted, whole object ofconstitution of Caste Scrutiny Committee or verification of theclaims and object of giving finality under section 7(2) of theAct would be frustrated. No finality could be attached to anyvalidity certificate and it would be prone to be attacked anytime. It is possible that such practice adopted by theCommittee would be misused and validities granted are re-opened after enormous delay. For the reasons as recordedabove, we have no hesitation to hold that the order passed bythe Committee is perverse and liable to be quashed and setaside. Resultantly, we pass the following order.
Decision
10 wp 14732.23.odt finalO R D E R i.Writ Petition is hereby allowed.ii.The impugned order dated 13.9.2023passed by respondent no.2 - Caste ScrutinyCommittee thereby recalling the earlier decisiongranting validity of caste certificate to thepetitioners and invalidating caste certificates orrecalling validity certificates issued to petitionersis hereby quashed and set aside.iii.The caste validity certificate dated12.1.2001 granted in favour of petitioner no.1and caste validity certificate dated 9.6.2000granted in favour of petitioner no.2 shall standrestored.iv.Writ Petition is accordingly disposed offwith no order as to costs. Rule is made absolute.( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )...aaa/-