Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. KULKARNI, R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje – Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5364 of 2023
Decided On : 03-05-2023
Caste Validity - Jurisdiction of Scrutiny Committee - Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, 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 - Section 9, Section 7 - The court quashed the impugned notice issued by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, holding that the Committee had no jurisdiction to review its own decision granting caste validity certificates to the petitioners. The court emphasized that the power to review any order in the nature of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee would be the power required to be expressly conferred by the provisions of the legislation under which the Caste Scrutiny Committee functions. The court also highlighted that the legislature consciously avoided conferring any powers of review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review/revisit its own decision even in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. The court concluded that the action of the Scrutiny Committee in issuing the impugned notice was unsustainable in law, perverse and vitiated by complete disregard to the judicial pronouncements.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, belonging to the Koli-Mahadev tribe, sought to challenge the notice issued by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee seeking to reopen the proceedings of their caste validity. The petitioners had been granted caste validity certificates by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and argued that the certificates had attained finality as they were not challenged before the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee had acted without jurisdiction in issuing the impugned notice and quashed the notice. It held that the Committee had no authority to reopen the validity of the certificates granted to the petitioners and to issue the impugned notice for cancellation or revocation of their validity certificates. The court emphasized that the power to review any order in the nature of the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee would be the power required to be expressly conferred by the provisions of the legislation under which the Caste Scrutiny Committee functions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent-Scrutiny Committee had the jurisdiction to review its own decision granting caste validity certificates to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee had no powers to review its own orders and emphasized that the legislature consciously avoided conferring any powers of review on the Committee to review/revisit its own decision even in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. The court concluded that the action of the Scrutiny Committee in issuing the impugned notice was unsustainable in law, perverse and vitiated by complete disregard to the judicial pronouncements.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned notice of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee and ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court held that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee had acted without jurisdiction while issuing the impugned notice and there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
R.N. LADDHA, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. At the instance and the request of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugns the legality and validity of the notice dated 13 March 2023, issued by the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, seeking to reopen the proceedings of the petitioners caste validity. The dispute pertains to the respondent-Scrutiny Committees’ power to review/revisit its orders granting tribe validity certificates to the petitioners.
3. Heard Mr R. K. Mendadkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mrs M. P. Thakur, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that they belong to the Koli-Mahadev tribe, a scheduled tribe under Article 342(1) of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioners have been granted caste validity certificates by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in accordance with the law as also in accordance with the orders passed by this Court in the proceedings of Ms Kanchan Chidanand Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 448 of 1993 decided on 1 March 1996, Sharad Shrikrishna Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 2360 of 1993 decided on 1 March 1996, Kashinath Sangappa Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 2806 of 1994 decided on 1 March 1996, Mahesh Bhimashankar Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 2386 of 1994 decided on 29 July 1994, Deepak Chandrakant Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 2389 of 1994 decided on 29 July 1994, Kum. Arya Vaibhav Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Writ Petition No. 3735 of 2022 decided on 31 March 2022, Dhiren Rajesh Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, Writ Petition No. 5519 of 2022 decided on 23 September 2022 and Chandrakant Raghunath Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 5522 of 2022 decided on 23 September 2022.
5. It is submitted that once such validity certificate is granted to the petitioners under orders passed by this Court and such validity certificates not being the subject matter of any challenge before this Court, the validity certificates have attained finality, and now there is conclusive proof of the petitioners’ social status as Koli-Mahadev scheduled tribe.
6. In respect of another family member of the petitioners, Mr Mendadkar has also pointed out a recent decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court to which one of us was a member (R.N. Laddha, J.) in Abhishek Mahendra Umbarje vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC Online Bom 2858 wherein, the Scrutiny Committee was directed to issue a tribe validity certificate to the petitioner therein, who is a blood relative of the petitioners. It is submitted that in a manner known to the law, the petitioners and their blood relatives have been granted caste validity certificates, which according to Mr Mendadkar, is in consensus with the law laid down in Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee, 2010 SCC Online Bom 1053. It is hence submitted that the respondent-Scrutiny Committee had no authority to reopen the validity of the certificates granted to the petitioners and to issue the impugned notice for cancellation or revocation of their validity certificates.
7. According to Mr Mendadkar, the respondent-Scrutiny Committee in issuing the impugned communication has acted as good as an Appellate Authority over the orders passed by the High Court in reopening the caste validity certificates as granted to the petitioners. Mr Mendadkar has placed reliance on the decision in Kum. Arya Vaibhav Umbarje (supra) and Akash Sanjay Gawali vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, Writ Petition No. 2305 of 2020 decided on 2 February 2023 to contend that once the caste certificates of the blood relatives of the petitioners were validated as belo
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no powers to review its own orders granting caste validity certificates and that the legislature consciously ....
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 withou....
The Scrutiny Committee cannot recall validity certificates absent explicit legislative power for review, even in instances of fraud or misrepresentation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no inherent power of review under the Act of 2000 and rules framed thereunder. Additionally, the power to can....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Scrutiny Committee does not have jurisdiction to issue show cause notices for cancellation of validity certificates without finding of fra....
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to settled legal principles and the principles of appreciating the evidence in determining the validity of tribe certificates.
(1) Reservation – Order passed by Scrutiny Committee which reflects due appreciation of evidence and application of mind and in absence of any allegation of bias/malice or lack of jurisdiction, distu....
The Scrutiny Committee cannot invalidate tribe validity certificates of blood relatives without evidence of fraud or jurisdictional issues; valid certificates must be accepted to ensure consistency a....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
