JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

3. The impugned shown cause notices dated 2nd May, 2018 and 24th August, 2018 issued by Respondent No.2 - Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, seeking to cancel the certificate of Tribe Validity granted to the Petitioner are questioned for their correctness or otherwise in this petition.

4. Shri Mendadkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that these notices could not have been issued for several reasons.

Firstly, the reason for issuance of these notices was invalidation of the Tribe of certificate of Kumari Sneha Vishnu Thakar, the daughter of the Petitioner and this reason having been taken away owing to grant of validity certificate to Sneha Vishnu Thakar, the very basis of the show cause notices now does not exist.

Secondly, it is submitted that merely because some entries were not produced before the Scrutiny Committee, it would not, by reason of such failure alone, result in conclusion of the Petitioner having suppressed the material facts.

Thirdly, learned counsel further submits that some of the entries were discovered later on and so the Petitioner could not be blamed for any suppression of facts. He relies upon the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court of Nagpur in the case of Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Gadhchiroli and Anr [2021(5) Mh.L.J., 345], wherein this Court, Nagpur Bench, has held that failure to refer to old revenue records when same could have been verified by the Scrutiny Committee during the earlier verification would not amount to fraud.

Fourthly, the learned counsel submits that finding variance between the information given by the Petitioner as regards the rituals and customs and the information given by the daughter of the Petitioner in respect of the customs and rituals, the Scrutiny Committee erroneously held that Petitioner failed in affinity test. He submits that variance to some extent is bound to be there due to generation gap. He submits that while older people would have more knowledge about the customs and tradition of the family, the younger generation may not have so much of knowledge and, therefore, if any variance in two sets of information occurs, the same has to be seen as natural and not something which amounts to misrepresentation of the facts.

5. Fifthly, learned counsel further submits that the scrutiny committee has no power to review it's own order as no such power is expressly conferred upon it under Section 7(2) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Category and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 or any other provision of law. On the contrary, he further submits, Section 7(2) accords finality and unassailability to orders of the Committee, except under extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

6. The Learned AGP taking an exception to the submissions of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, argues that although there is no power of review expressly conferred under the said Act on the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has the power to reconsider its earlier decision, if it was obtained by practicing fraud or suppressing facts or misrepresenting facts, and in this case the misrepresentation was writ large. She further submits that by virtue of judicial pronouncements, the power of reconsideration of the old decisions of the Scrutiny Committee has been created and has been seen to be inhering in the Scrutiny Committee, in those cases where it is seen that the validity certificate or caste / tribe certificate has been obtained by suppressing the facts or by playing fraud or by misrepresenting facts. She relies upon the view taken by this Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in the case of Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde v State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition No. 1954