The court found that the candidate had obtained an order validating her caste by suppressing the material information of her conversion to Christianity and the said order validating her caste claim had been obtained by practising fraud on the respondent Scrutiny Committee.

Headnote:
FRAUD - Caste claim - 2003(1) ALL MR 715, 1971(3) SCC 844, AIR 1981 SC 606, 2005 AIR SCW 1561 - The court found that the candidate had obtained an order validating her caste by suppressing the material information of her conversion to Christianity and the said order validating her caste claim had been obtained by practising fraud on the respondent Scrutiny Committee. The order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee subsequently invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner on grounds of fraud cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction. The overwhelming evidence clearly indicated that the candidate had been converted to Christianity and this fact was suppressed by the candidate from the Scrutiny Committee. No case was pleaded by the candidate about reconversion before the respondent Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, in the absence of that, the court found no perversity in the order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee which is impugned by the candidate, invalidating the caste claim of the candidate.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a candidate belonging to Hindu Mahar caste, contested the election as a member of Zilla Parishad on a seat reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. The caste certificate of the petitioner was referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee, which subsequently invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner on the grounds of fraud.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the candidate had obtained an order validating her caste by suppressing the material information of her conversion to Christianity and the said order validating her caste claim had been obtained by practising fraud on the respondent Scrutiny Committee. The order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee subsequently invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner on grounds of fraud cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction.
Issues: The questions of some importance which arise for consideration in these petitions are: (a) Whether the statute has conferred express powers of review and whether in the absence of express powers of review impliedly it can be said that the respondent Scrutiny Committee can exercise the powers of review; (b) Whether the exercise undertaken by the respondent Scrutiny Committee is an exercise of review on merits or is a procedural review; and (c) Whether the judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee by which the caste claim of the candidate has been invalidated is as a result of exercise of review because the earlier order of validating the caste claim of the candidate had been obtained by the candidate by suppressing material documents and has thus practised fraud on the respondent Scrutiny Committee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the candidate had obtained an order validating her caste by suppressing the material information of her conversion to Christianity and the said order validating her caste claim had been obtained by practising fraud on the respondent Scrutiny Committee. The order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee subsequently invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner on grounds of fraud cannot be said to be an order without jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions and found no perversity in the order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee which is impugned by the candidate, invalidating the caste claim of the candidate.

P. V. HARDAS, J.: - In both the petitions since the facts are identical, both these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. In Writ Petition No.337 of 2003, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 20 - 1 - 2003 passed by respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on 29 - 1 - 2003 which is annexed as Exh.N to the petition, disqualifying the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as a candidate belonging to Hindu Mahar caste, which is a Scheduled Caste and provide all the benefits of reservation of the said caste to the petitioner. After amending the petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ challenging the election of respondent no.7 on the post of President, Zilla Parish ad, Aurangabad on 14 - 2 - 2003.

2. In Writ Petition No.5271 of 2002, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.337 of 2003 is respondent no.8 to the petition. In this petition the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Scrutiny Committee validating the claim of respondent no.8 by judgment and order dated 31 - 5 - 2002. The petitioners in this petition have also prayed for declaration that the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent no.8 by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Vaijapur on 5 - 1 - 2002 as belonging to Hindu Mahar, Scheduled Caste, be declared as null and void as respondent no.8 belongs to Christian religion.

3. The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of both these petitions can briefly be stated thus : According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Hindu Mahar, which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste. Certificate to this effect have been issued by the Executive Magistrate, Gangapur on 16 - 6 - 1994 and by the SubDivisional Officer, Vaijapur on 5 - 1 - 2002. On the strength that the petitioner is a "Mahar" i.e., a Scheduled Caste candidate, the petitioner contested the election as member of Zilla Parishad on a seat reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. In the election, the petitioner was duly elected as member of Zilla Parishad. On 16 - 4 - 2002 the caste certificate of the petitioner was referred by the Collector, Aurangabad to the respondent Scrutiny Committee. The respondent - Scrutiny Committee, by its judgment and order dated 315 - 2002 validated the caste certificate of the petitioner. The election of the President of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad was set aside and as a consequence of that the seat became vacant. Meanwhile, it appears that the petitioners in Writ Petition No.5271 of 2002, by filing this petition, challenged the judgment and order of t the Scrutiny Committee validating the caste claim of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.337 of 2003 and respondent no.5 in the other petition. As soon as the election of the President of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, was declared, according to the petitioner a complaint was sent in the name of one Shantaram Dharmaji Ubale, rlo Samata Nagar, Gangapur, Tq. Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad, to the respondent Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner the respondent Scrutiny Committee entertained this complaint and suo motu started proceedings for reviewing its order on the basis of the said complaint. On 12 - 12 - 2002 the respondent Scrutiny Committee suo motu referred the matter to the vigilance cell and the vigilance cell in turn submitted its report on 12 - 12 - 2002. The Committee accordingly issued notice to the petitioner directing the petitioner to submit her reply within two weeks as to why the caste validity certificate issued in favour of the petitioner in Wr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(Bom) 800

The court found that the candidate had obtained an order validating her caste by suppressing the material information of her conversion to Christianity and the said order validating her caste claim had been obtained by practising fraud on the respondent Scrutiny Committee.

Cases Referred (14)