High Court · 2026

1 wp 7045.25 judg.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYNAGPUR BENCH : NAGPURWrit Petition No.7045/2025Sunil Babarao Gawande, Aged 53 years, Occ-Service,R/o. Besides Dr. Anil Lonare House, Ward No.3, Nalwadi, Wardha 442001. …. Petitioner. Versus1)District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Wardha, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar social Justice Bhavan, Near Mahila Ashram,Laxminagar, Sewagram Road, Railway Station Marg, Wardhathrough its Chairman. 2)Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Wardha.3)Virendra @ Rana Baburao Rannaware,Aged about 50 yrs, Occ.-Private,R/o. Plot No.5, Manewada Road, Near Sathavane Complex, Manewada Square, Ayodhya Nagar, Nagpur. ….Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Mr. S.R. Narnaware, Advocate for petitioner.•Mrs. D.I. Charlewar, AGP for resp. no.1.•Mr. N.M. Kolhe, Advocates for resp. no.2.•Mr. A.D. Dangore, Advocates for resp. no.3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -CORAM : Smt. M.S. Jawalkar and Nandesh S. Deshpande, JJ. Closed on : 21-04-2026. Pronounced on : 05-05-2026.J u d g m e n t (per : Nandesh S. Deshpande, J.) R ule . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withthe consent of parties.2.The present petition takes exception to the order ofinvalidation passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 30-10-2025.3.The facts, which can be stated in the petition, are asunder:4.The petitioner belongs to Dhanwar (Nomadic Tribe-C)Category and was accordingly issued a caste certificate by the 2 wp 7045.25 judg.odtExecutive Magistrate, Wardha on 30-08-1991. Thereafter, on thebasis of the said caste certificate, the petitioner was appointed as aGram Sewak on 15-04-1999 and subsequently was promoted as aGram Vikas Adhikari through examination. On 02-08-2000, theScrutiny Committee issued a Validity Certificate in his favour afterfollowing the procedure in that regard as provided under theMaharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes andSpecial Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verificationof) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (Act No. XXIII of 2001) (for short,the said Act’). Thereafter, after a lapse of about 23 years, respondentno.3 made a complaint on 16-10-2023 to the Scrutiny Committeeon a ground that the said validity certificate obtained by thepetitioner is an outcome of fraud and on the basis of falsedocuments. Thereafter, the Block Development Officer submittedthe enquiry report on 20-11-2023, thereby drawing a conclusion thatthe validity certificate dated 16-09-2000 issued by the competentauthority is valid and correct in law.5.On 24-01-2024, the District Caste Certificate ScrutinyCommittee issued a letter to respondent no.2 clarifying the saidsettled position that the Scrutiny Committee has no power to reviewits own order. This led the respondent no.3 to file a writ petition 3 wp 7045.25 judg.odtbefore this Court bearing Writ Petition No.2301/2025 for issuanceof certain directions. This petition came to be decided by this Courtvide order dated 29-04-2025. This Court disposed of the petitionon a ground that the petitioner therein i.e respondent no.3 hereinintends to approach the Committee with a representation based onthe judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in that regard.6.This prompted the petitioner herein to file a reviewbefore this Court. The review application was heard on 06.11.2025,wherein the present petitioner chose to withdraw the application. Inthis backdrop, on 06.11.2025, respondent no. 1 issued a show causenotice, referring to the order passed by this Court in Writ PetitionNo. 2301/2025 as well as the complaint made by Respondent No. 3dated 09.06.2025. The parties were thereafter heard by the ScrutinyCommittee, which also conducted an inquiry in accordance with theprovisions of the Act mentioned hereinabove. Subsequently, by itsorder dated 30.10.2025, the Committee proceeded to invalidate thecertificate issued in favour of the petitioner. This order is challengedin the present petition on various grounds amongst others.7.We have heard Mr. S.R. Narnaware, learned Counsel forthe petitioner, Mrs. D.I. Charlewar, learned AGP for respondent no.1and Mr. N.M. Kolhe, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. 4 wp 7045.25 judg.odt8.Learned Counsel for the petitioner by taking us throughthe order of the Scrutiny Committee submits that the ScrutinyCommittee has committed a serious error in law in invalidating thevalidity certificate granted way back in the year 2000. He furthersubmits that it is a settled position of law that the ScrutinyCommittee cannot review its own order and revisit the validitycertificate already granted. He further submits that the respondentno.3 had no locus to challenge the validity certificate issued in hisfavour. He, therefore, submits that the entire exercise is de hors theprovisions of law. As far as the locus aspect is concerned, he relies onthe judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter ofAyaaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State of Maharashtra, reported in(2013) 4 SCC 645 to buttress his submissions. Insofar as the lack ofthe power of the Scrutiny Committee to review it’s own order isconcerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon thejudgment of Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar vs District CasteCertificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli and another(2021 (5) Mh.L.J. 345).9.Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 i.ethe original complainant submits that he has all the locus to file thecomplaint against the petitioner since the validity certificate isobtained on the basis of fraudulent documents. He submits that as 5 wp 7045.25 judg.odtcan be seen from the order impugned in the petition, a case of fraudis clearly made out and therefore the Committee was correct ininvalidating the certificate granted in favour of the petitioner. Hefurther submits that Section 8 of the said Act and Rule 11 thereofcontemplate the methodology and the documents required to besubmitted for obtaining a validity certificate. It is, therefore, hissubmission that there is no embargo under the Act or the Rules onrevisiting a validity certificate already granted, particularly where acase of fraud is made out. He further points out that the reviewapplication filed by the petitioner was withdrawn, and therefore, thepetitioner cannot now turn around and contend that the ScrutinyCommittee erred in invalidating his caste certificate.10.Rival contentions fall for our consideration. LearnedCounsel for the parties have filed their notes of arguments. We haveperused the same.11.As can be seen from the impugned order passed by theScrutiny Committee on 30-10-2025, the Scrutiny Committee hasbased its invalidation merely on a fact that the caste of the petitioneras mentioned in the school record of Zilla Parishad HigherSecondary School, Sonegaon (Wai), Taluka Deoli, District Wardha,shows his caste as ‘Kunbi’, while the document in the college namelyNew Arts College, Wardha and more particularly the School Leaving 6 wp 7045.25 judg.odtCertificate shows his caste a ‘Dhanwar’. It is principally on the basisof these documents that the Scrutiny Committee has recorded afinding that fraud has been committed. We have perused theimpugned order. On a meaningful reading of the impugned order, itdoes not reflect that a case of fraud has been made out. A meresweeping observation that the validity certificate was obtained on thebasis of false and incorrect documents would not suffice to establish acase of fraud so as to warrant interference with a validity certificatealready granted 12.Fraud, as defined under Section 17 of the IndianContract Act, 1872, means and includes any of the following actscommitted by a party to a contract, or with his connivance, or by hisagent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or toinduce him to enter into the contract :-(i) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true,(ii) the active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge, or belief of the fact;(iii) a promise made without any intention of performing it,(iv) any other act fitted to deceive.(v) any such act or omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent. 7 wp 7045.25 judg.odt13.In the context of caste scrutiny proceedings, the FullBench of this Court in Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State ofMaharashtra and others, 2015(1) ALL MR 799 (F.B.), hasauthoritatively held that for cancellation of a caste certificate underSection 7(1) of the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, theScrutiny Committee must record two specific findings (1) that theperson has obtained a false caste certificate, and (it) that suchcertificate was obtained fraudulently meaning, by means known tobe fraudulent in law. The Full Bench further held in para 74, that"mere using the words false, fraudulent, misrepresentation, collusion,suppression, etc., in the order of the Scrutiny Committee shall not bea decisive factor unless there is relevant material available on recordto substantiate such finding."14.It therefore follows that, for making out a case of fraud,cogent and convincing material must be placed on record. In ourview, this exercise has not been undertaken by the ScrutinyCommittee, nor is it reflected in the impugned order. 15.We, therefore, find merit in the petitioner’s contentionthat the Scrutiny Committee lacked jurisdiction to review its ownorder.16.A further factor which weighs with us in entertainingthe petitioner’s claim is the long and substantial time lapse between 8 wp 7045.25 judg.odtthe issuance of the validity certificate and the complaint made byrespondent no. 3 herein. Admittedly, the caste certificate was issuedon 02-08-2000. The first complaint was made by respondent no.2on 16-10-2023. There is no explanation for the said inordinatedelay which prompted respondent no.3 to make such a complaint.17.Furthermore, as far as locus is concerned, there isnothing in the complaint nor any material placed on record to showthat how respondent no.3 is aggrieved and he has any locus tochallenge the validity granted in favour of the petitioner.18.If a case of fraud is established, no locus is required.However, as observed supra, even upon a meaningful reading andliberal interpretation of the Scrutiny Committee’s order, no case offraud is made out. It therefore follows that respondent no. 3 had nolocus to challenge the validity certificate issued in favour of thepetitioner Thus, the petition deserves to be allowed and allowed assuch. ORDER(i)Writ petition is allowed.(ii) The impugned order dated 30-10-2025 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, Wardha, is hereby quashed and set aside(iii) It is further declared that the validity certificate dated02-08-2000 issued by the said Committee is valid. 9 wp 7045.25 judg.odt19.Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs. (Nandesh S. Deshpande , J. ) (Smt. M.S. Jawalkar J. ) Deshmukh