The Caste Scrutiny Committee lacks the authority to review a validated caste certificate; it can only cancel it if fraud is proven, and must afford a fair hearing as dictated by principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties.

2. Heard Mr. S.R. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner; Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General with Mr. D.V. Chavan, learned Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 8; Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 and Miss Neerja Choube, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

3. On 04/04/2024, upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties for interim relief, we had passed the following order:

“1. Heard Mr. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Deven Chauhan, learned Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and 5, Miss Neerja Choubey learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 and Mr. S P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 7, all of whom have appeared suo motu.

2. The basic reliefs claimed in the petition is against the decision passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, dated 28/03/2024, (Page-135), by which, the caste claim of the petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste ‘Chambhar’ which was earlier validated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 17/02/2020, on the complaint of respondent No. 6 dated 20/03/2024 (Page-104) has been canceled on the ground, that the earlier validity certificate which was obtained by the petitioner, on 17/02/2020, was by practicing fraud. It also challenges the order dated 28/03/2024 (Page-150) passed by the Returning Officer of 9 Ramtek Parliamentary Constituency, Nagpur by which the nomination of the petitioner, for the ongoing Lok Sabha Elections, has been rejected.

2.1. Mr. Narnavare, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailing both these orders contends, that once the Caste Scrutiny Committee had validated the caste claim of the petitioner by issuing validity certificate on 17/02/2020, a complaint against which, by the respondent No. 7 on 27/02/2024 (Page-159) was rejected in the light of Section 7(2) of 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 (hereinafter referred to as “Caste Certificate Act”), it was not permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to have revisited the decision by exercising the power of review.

2.2. It is further contended that even if the decision dated 28/03/2024, by the Caste Scrutiny Committee had been taken on the complaint by the respondent No. 6 however, the complaint by respondent No. 6 indicates that it was at the behest of the respondent No. 7 itself, for which he invites my attention to the last Para (on record page 108), in the said complaint, which indicates that the documents for filing the said complaint were obtained by respondent no. 6 from the respondent no. 7.

2.3. In support of his contention that the Scrutiny Committee has no power of review, he relies upon Bharat Nagu Garud Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC Online Bom 2537 as well as Sameer Hariram Shende Vs. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Gondia in Writ Petition No. 1224/2024 (Para 28 to 30) and Ishwar Naga Bondalwar and Another v. The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee , Gadchiroli a