Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. R.K. Mendadkar, Mr. A.M. Kulkarni and Mr. V.R. Gaikwad.
For the Respondent: Mr. P.P. Kakade.

Key Points: - The court held that a caste validity certificate validly issued under the rules at the time of issuance cannot be discarded merely because rules have changed subsequently (!) . - The matter was remanded back to the Committee for fresh consideration with direction to consider old pre-constitutional documents and probative value, applying cautious approach per Section 90 of the Evidence Act, and give cogent reasons for discarding them (!) (!) (!) . - The impugned order was quashed and set aside, with remand for a fresh hearing on merits and in accordance with law, including hearing the petitioner and intervenor, and to pass a reasoned order within 3 months from the date of the judgment (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The Committee’s application of area restrictions prior to their removal was criticized and remanded for reconsideration in light of applicable legal precedents (Apoorva; Pandurang Rangnath Chavan) as noted by the court (!) (!) (!) . - The decision acknowledges the weight to be given to a cousin’s caste validity certificate when issued under the law then prevailing and considers it in light of Apoorva (Supra) (!) .

What is the effect of a caste validity certificate issued under the rules prevailing at the time of issuance on later scrutiny under changed rules?

What is the proper approach of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee when confronted with old pre-constitutional documents and their probative value under Section 90 of the Evidence Act?

What are the circumstances under which the High Court remands a caste validity determination for fresh consideration and what directions does it provide?