The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Scrutiny Committee had no statutory power to re-examine a Caste Validity Certificate already issued, and thus, the cancellation was without jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

A. S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The order dated 23/10/2019 passed by the District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli cancelling the Caste Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner on 17/12/2009 is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, particularly on the ground that the impugned order as passed is without jurisdiction.

2. The petitioner who claims to belong to Zade-Nomadic Tribe-C was issued a Caste Validity Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee on 17/12/2009. The petitioner's nephew sought verification of his Caste Certificate and he thus approached the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner's nephew sought to rely upon various documents including the Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner. During the process of verification of the petitioner's nephew's caste certificate the Research Officer and Member Secretary of the Scrutiny Committee issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 15/03/2019. The petitioner was called upon to submit all documents on the basis of which he was issued the Validity Certificate in the backdrop of the fact that while verifying the caste certificate of his nephew an old record of the year 1920-24 indicating the entry "Zade-Kunbi" pertaining to the petitioner's predecessors was found. In response thereto the petitioner on 22/04/2019 submitted all relevant documents and restated that he belongs to Nomadic Tribe-C. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 23/10/2019 found that the petitioner had been issued the Validity Certificate without the report of the Vigilance Cell being called and in the absence of any enquiry by the Vigilance Cell. The Committee then proceeded to adjudicate the caste-claim of the petitioner's nephew as well as correctness of the Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner. It found that certain revenue entries of the year 1920-24 in which it was mentioned that the petitioner's predecessors belonged to "Kunbi" caste had not been referred to by the petitioner during the validity proceedings. The Scrutiny Committee hence proceeded to cancel the Caste Validity Certificate dated 17/12/2009 issued to the petitioner as well as the Caste Certificate issued to him. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order.

3. Shri Rohit Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in absence of any provision in the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes And Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, the Act of 2000) and particularly the Rules framed thereunder to re-examine a Validity Certificate already granted by the Scrutiny Committee, it had no jurisdiction to re-open such adjudication. Re-examination of the material on the basis of which the Validity Certificate was issued would amount to exercising the power of review which was not conferred on the Scrutiny Committee in the Act of 2000 or under the Rules framed thereunder. The only limited scope/power available with the Scrutiny Committee for revisiting the Validity Certificate already granted was in case where the Scrutiny Committee found that the Validity Certificate was obtained by fraud or that it was issued by the Scrutiny Committee without jurisdiction. To support this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No.1 and ors., (2010) 6 MhLJ 401. He further submitted that if the Vigilance Cell merely had doubt with regard to certain old entries pertaining to the predecessors of the petitioner that by itself would not be sufficient to doubt such document unless there was material available to show that the petitioner or his predecessor were instrumental in making such changes in the old