Scrutiny Committee cannot discard validity certificates of close blood relatives issued without Vigilance enquiry if prior Committee consciously decided no referral after documentary satisfaction; amounts to impermissible appeal.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondent-State.

2. The caste claim of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Mahadev Koli, Scheduled Tribe’ has been invalidated by respondent no.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (‘the Scrutiny Committee’ for short) by the impugned order dated 19/06/2023. There is no dispute that there are two holders of the certificates of validity viz. Devidas Dagu Gangurde who is the father of the petitioner and Navneet Devidas Gangurde who is the real brother of the petitioner. On the basis of the validity certificates granted to the close blood relatives of the petitioner, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Adiwasi Thakur Jamat Swarakshan Samiti Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others , (2023) 16 SCC 415 and by this Court in the case of Apoorva D/o Vinay Nichale Vs. Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 and others , 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 401 there should be no difficulty in issuing a certificate of validity in favour of the petitioner being a close blood relative of Devidas and Navneet who have been granted such certificates.

3. However, learned AGP was at pains to point out that the caste validity certificate issued to Devidas was without conducting the Vigilance Cell enquiry. It is submitted that even so far as Navneet is concerned, there was no Vigilance Cell enquiry conducted. It is further pointed out that the Committee has discarded these certificates for good reasons inasmuch as the Vigilance Cell enquiry conducted in the caste claim of the petitioner revealed that there are several interpolations and changes made in the documents relied upon by the petitioner in support of his caste claim. Learned AGP therefore submitted that the present Scrutiny Committee has recorded a finding that after a detailed Vigilance Cell enquiry was conducted, it was found that the petitioner had relied upon various documents which were required to be discarded for the reasons mentioned by the Scrutiny Committee. It is further submitted that the caste validity certificates were issued by the then Scrutiny Committee in favour of Devidas and Navneet in a most casual manner without adhering to the procedure expected of the Scrutiny Committee to follow.

4. The submissions of the learned AGP are attractive. The reading of the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee does go to show that the Committee has after an elaborate exercise and after directing Vigilance Cell enquiry found it appropriate to discard the validity certificates granted in favour of the close blood relatives of the petitioner.

5. The question is as to whether the Scrutiny Committee was justified in discarding the said certificates of validity due regard being had to the provisions of the 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 and the Rules framed thereunder and also having regard to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. When a claim is made for issuance of certificate of validity on the basis of close blood relative having been issued a certificate of val