Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

8. It would be necessary to briefly note the relevant facts in each of these petitions.

(i) Writ Petition No. 8822 of 2022

(Bharat Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

9. The petitioner in this petition is in the employment of Government of Maharashtra with effect from 22 June, 1993. As on date, he is holding the post of a Joint District Registrar (Class I), Mumbai Suburban District. He belongs to Koli-Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Tahsildar, Balgan, dated 12th May 1992. The petitioner had applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the tribe/caste certificate as per the 2000 Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 14th January 2005 had issued a caste validity certificate to the petitioner. Such decision at all material times has remained in operation during the petitioner’s employment.

10. However, by the impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee purportedly exercising powers of review has set aside/ recalled its order dated 14th January 2005, whereby validity of the tribe/caste certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. The caste validity certificate has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after a period of 16 years as assailed in the present petition.

(ii) Writ Petition No. 9071 of 2022

(Pravin Rohidas Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

11. The petitioner in this petition joined the service as a Shikshan Sevak at the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Ghatalbari on 29th May, 2003 and he is currently serving as a Graduate Teacher with Zilla Parishad Primary School at Nalwadi. He belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe caste. A tribe/caste certificate dated 14th March 2000, was issued to him by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalvan. The petitioner applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the tribe/caste certificate. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 9th September 2005 granted caste validity certificate to the petitioner. At all material times, such order/validity of the tribe/caste certificate had remained valid for the purposes it was issued and as permissible. By the impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee exercising suo motu powers of review, has set aside/recalled its order dated 9th September 2005, by which validity of the tribe/caste certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the caste validity certificate has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after a period of 16 years and which is assailed before us in this petition.

(iii) Writ Petition No. 9072 of 2022

(Ramdas Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

12. The petitioner in this petition joined employment as a Primary Teacher at the Zilla Parishad Primary School at Gazarwadi on 26th December, 1983. On 31st December, 2021, he superannuated from the post of Headmaster from Zilla Parishad Primary School at Nandgaon. He belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Tahsildar, Baglan dated 29th August 1981. The petitioner had applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the tribe/caste certificate. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 29th November 2012, granted a caste validity certificate dated 7th December 2012 to the petitioner which at all material times remained in operation. By the impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee suo motu exercising powers of review, has set aside/recalled its order dated 29th November 2012, whereby validity of the tribe/caste certificate has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, after a period of 10 years which is being assailed in this petition.

(iv) Writ Petition No. 9073 of 2022

(Rohidas Nagu Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

13. The petitioner in this petition was in employment as a Member, Utrane Gram Panchayat for the term of 2010-2015. He belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe caste. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalvan dated 1st June 2010. The petitioner applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the tribe/caste certificate as per the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 20th May 2011, granted a caste validity certificate dated 25th May 2011 to the petitioner, which at all material times had remained in operation. By the impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee exercising powers of a suo motu review, has set aside/recalled its order dated 20th May 2011, whereby validity of the tribe/caste certificate as granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after a period of 11 years as assailed in this petition.

(v) Writ Petition No. 9074 of 2022

(Priyanka Ramdas Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

14. The petitioner in this petition belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalvan dated 18th June 2007. The petitioner applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee so as to obtain a validity of the tribe/caste certificate as per the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 20th September 2008, granted a validity certificate to the petitioner, which at all material times remained in operation. By the impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee suo motu exercising powers of review has set aside/recalled its order dated 20th September 2008, whereby validity to the tribe/caste certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner, after a period of 14 years. Such order of the Caste Scrutiny Commitee is assailed in this petition.

(vi) Writ Petition No. 9075 of 2022

(Nilima Rohidas Garud vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.)

15. The petitioner in this petition belongs to Koli Mahadeo Scheduled Tribe. A tribe/caste certificate was issued to him by Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalvan dated 31st March 2005. The petitioner applied to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for obtaining validation of the said certificate as per the provisions of the 2000 Act. The Caste Scrutiny Committee by an order dated 9th September 2005 granted a caste validity certificate to the petitioner, which at all material times had remained in operation. By the impugned order dated 13th May 2022, the Caste Scrutiny Committee exercising suo muto powers of review has set aside/recalled its order dated 9th September 2005, whereby validity of the tribe/caste certificate as granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Caste Scrutiny Committee after a period of 17 years, which has been assailed in this petition.

16. Having noted the facts of each of the petitions,we may now advert to the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners.

17. The challenge as mounted by the petitioners to the impugned orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, is primarily on the ground that the Caste Scrutiny Committing has no jurisdiction to review its orders much less to exercise any suo motu review powers, so as to reopen a concluded validity certificates granted in the past, and in the present case after many years of the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In supporting such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on a recent decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Anr.[1] It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has examined the provisions of the 2000 Act as also the position in law and has held that even in the case of fraud, the Caste Scrutiny Committee which exercises quasi judicial power, has no jurisdiction to suo motu review its past decisions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. Government of Delhi[2] to contend that the Caste Scrutiny Committee cannot assume suo motu jurisdiction to review its previous orders when such jurisdiction has not been conferred by law.

18. Ms. Diwan, learned Assistant Government Pleader who initially represented the State, has also not disputed the position in law as helddown by this Court in the said decision specifically on the interpretation of the provisions of 2000 Act, and more particularly when the Court has held that considering the provisions of the 2000 Act the Caste Scrutiny Committee would not have jurisdiction to exercise any review powers. Ms. Diwan, has not brought to our notice any decision which by any different interpretation of the 2000 Act, would displace the said position in law as held in the decision of this Court in Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra) case.

19. Later on Mr. Gangal, learned Special Counsel has appeared and has made submissions on behalf of the State. In opposing these petitions he would submit that the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to suo motu review the proceedings, ought not to be accepted. It is his contention that the Caste

Scrutiny Committee has “inherent jurisdiction” to review its own order. In support of such contention, Mr. Gangal has placed reliance on the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Sangita Sharad Kolse vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.3, Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune & Anr.4, Vishnu Rajaram Thakar vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. & Anr.[5] and J. Chitra vs. District Collector and Chairman, State Level Vigilance Committee, Tamil Nadu & Ors.[6]

20. Mr. Gangal would next submit that in respect of the petitions as filed by the members of Garud family, the observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 10 December, 2021 in case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., 7 are relevant. Mr. Gangal, however, has stated that the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud clearly stands on a different footing and would be required to be separately heard and is not part of the present proceedings.The submission of Mr. Gangal referring to the said judgment of the Supreme Court is to the effect that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was under an obligation to reopen the cases of these petitioners belonging to the Garud family. This contention 3 2006(5) ALL MR 565 4 2009(2) ALL MR 869

7 Civil Appeal No. 7442 of 2021 of Mr. Gangal is without prejudice to the contention, that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has inherent jurisdiction to reopen the cases and exercise power of review.

21. Mr. Gangal has also drawn our attention to an order passed by the Supreme Court in case of Nilima Rohidas Garud & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.[8] another member of the Garud family wherein the Supreme Court has held that the subsequent order passed by the appropriate authority is a new cause of action and as and when the fresh proceedings are initiated challenging the subsequent order, the same are required to be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits and all the contentions and/or defences, which may be available to the respective parties were kept open to be considered by the High Court and/ or appropriate forum before whom the proceedings are initiated. Nilima Rohidas Garud is one of the petitioners before the Court in the present proceedings.

22. Mr. Gangal thus relying on such order passed by the Supreme Court has submitted that there is a direction to the Caste Scrutiny Committee to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on its own merits on the basis of the material available on record. It is submitted that

8 Miscellaneous Application No. 888 of 2022 in SLP(C) No. 8825/2022 the petitioners hence, are precluded from urging an issue as to the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopen the cases of the petitioners.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners responding to the submissions as urged on behalf of the State, would submit that the contentions on behalf of the State are totally untenable. Firstly, it is his submission that the Scrutiny Committee which is a creature of the statute would not possess a review jurisdiction, much less to suo motu review its order. It is submitted that it is a well settled principle of law as laid down in catena of judgments, that the power of review is required to be conferred by lawand that there cannot be an inherent power vested in the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to exercise a review jurisdiction. It is his submission that if such contention as urged on behalf of the State Government is accepted, it would bring about a regime of total uncertainty and/or an open licence to Caste Scrutiny Committee to revisit and re-open concluded cases. It is his submission that such is not the object of the legislation. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the Court’s attention to the provisions of the 2000 Act and consideration of these provisions in the recent decision of this Court in Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra), Anil s/o. Shivram Bandawar vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Gadchiroli & Anr.[9] and Naresh Kumar & Ors. (supra).

24. The rival contentions have arisen for our consideration. Analysis and Conclusion:-

25. At the outset, it is necessary to note that the petitioners in the first batch of petitions were granted tribe/caste certificates between the period 1992 to 2005. The caste certificates had undergone enquiry by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, inasmuch as by orders passed by the then Caste Scrutiny Committee’s, the petitioners were granted tribe validity certificate between the year 2005 to 2012. It is almost after 16 years in three cases and about 10 to 11 years in other cases, a show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioners by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to suo motu reopen the validity, which was granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee to their caste / tribe certificates. Consequent thereto by the impugned orders which are passed about a year back, the validity to the petitioner’s Caste / tribe certificates granted by the original orders has been cancelled and the caste validity certificates of the petitioners have been invalidated. 9 2021(5) Mh. L.J. 345

26. In the present proceedings the petitioners are protected by interim order dated 29 July, 2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Dipankar Datta, C.J., as His Lordship then was & M.S. Karnik, J.). The interim orders have continued to operate.

27. Before we dwell on the legal issue, a bird’s eye view of the relevant dates in the first group of petitions, in relation to each of the petitioner’s caste certificate, the validity being initially granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the date of the show cause notice and the date of the impugned orders can be noted in the following tabular statement: Name of the petitioner Date of Caste Date of Validity Date of SCN for Review Date of Review Invalidation Order W.P. No. & Filing Date Bharat Nagu Garud 12.05.1992 14.01.2005 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 8822/2022 dt. 13.7.2022 Pravin Rohidas Garud 14.03.2000 09.09.2005 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9071/2022 Ramdas Nagu Garud 29.08.1981 07.12.2012 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9072/2022 Rohidas Nagu Garud 01.06.2010 25.05.2011 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9073/2022 dt. 18.7.2022 Priyanka Ramdas Garud 18.06.2007 20.09.2011 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9074/2022 dt. 21.7.2022 Nilima Rohidas Garud 31.03.2005 09.09.2005 11.06.2021 13.05.2022 9075/2022 dt. 21.7.2022

28. It is clear from the above chart that the Caste Validity Certificate granted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee was sought to be suo motu reopened by Caste Scrutiny Committee, by issuing show cause notices in question after a long long lapse of time. This was oblivious to the fact that from the period validity was granted, the parties had certainly changed their position inasmuch as the employment benefits, educational benefits etc., were availed by the petitioner, which were enjoyed by them for last more than 15 years as noted above. For eg. in case of Bharat Garud, he is in employment and is about to retire in two years. In the case of Petitioner Ramdas Nagu Garud has already superannuated. The case of other petitioners is also not different.

29. In the above circumstances, the issue which arises for our consideration and more particularly considering the scheme of 2000 Act, is as to whether it was permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, to issue show cause notices to the petitioners exercising suo motu review jurisdiction, so as to review the decision taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee’s in the years 2005, 2011 and 2012, granting validity to the tribe/caste certificates, as granted in favour of the petitioners so as to invalidate the earlier decisions. It would also be necessary to consider whether it was permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which is a quasi-judicial committee, to reopen such cases after such long lapse of time or on an allegation of fraud having being practiced by the petitioners in obtaining the caste validity certificates.

30. In so far as the jurisdiction of a quasi judicial authority to exercise review powers is concerned, in our opinion, the reliance of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar & Ors. Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi) (supra), is quite apposite. In such decision the Supreme Court, although in the context of an award under the Land Acquisition Act and whether there would be a power to review the award, reiterated the well-settled principle of law, that the power of review can be exercised only when the statute provides for the same. The Supreme Court observed thus: “13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji, Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh Gupta vs. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa vs. Commr. Of Land Records & Settlement and Sunita Jain vs. Pawan Kumar Jain, this Court held that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either expressly/specifically or by necessary implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/ Rules, review of an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute. Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a nullity, being without jurisdiction.”

31. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anil s/o Shivram Bandawar (supra), was confronted with an issue as to whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee would have any statutory power either under the 2000 Act or the Rules framed thereunder to “re-examine” a Caste Validity Certificate already issued. The Court referring to an earlier decision in the case Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee & Ors.10, observed as under:- “6. We find that it was not permissible for the Caste Scrutiny Committee to have re-examined the caste certificate and Caste Validity Certificate issued to the petitioner on the grounds on which it was so sought to be so re-examined as stated in the show cause notice. It is undisputed that there is no provision either in the Act of 2000 or the Rules framed thereunder to re-open/re-examine the matter of issuance of a Validity Certificate by it. This aspect as regards absence of statutory power to do so stands concluded by the decision of this Court in Apoorva Vinay Nichale (supra). It has been held in clear terms that merely because a different view on the same facts could be arrived at, the same would not entitle the Scrutiny Committee dealing with a subsequent caste-claim to reject such claim. As stated above it is on the basis of fresh material in the form of old revenue records of the year 1920-24 that the exercise of re-examining the Caste Validity Certificate was undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee. We thus find that in absence of any statutory power either under the Act of 2000 or the Rules framed thereunder to re-examine a Caste Validity Certificate already issued, the exercise undertaken by the Scrutiny Committee pursuant to the show cause notice issued by it was without jurisdiction.”

32. In Akash Sanjay Gawali v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.11 a Division Bench of this Court held that the Court had repeatedly stated that Caste Scrutiny Committee did not have a suo motu power of review, as such power was not conferred by the statute, also none could be so inferred. The relevant observations of the Division Bench are required to be noted with read thus:- “7. We find it surprising that we have to repeatedly state that this committee has no Suo motu power of review. None is conferred by statute. None can be necessarily inferred. The impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction.” 10 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 401 11 Writ Petition No. 2305 of 2020 dated 2 February, 2020

33. In Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje (supra), a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (G.S. Kulkarni, J.) was a member, was confronted with a similar issue in regard to the jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review its own orders. This decision takes into consideration the entire scheme of the said Act and more particularly the provisions of Sections 6, 7, 9 and 15 of the Act, so as to examine whether the 2000 Act conferred any review jurisdiction on the Caste Scrutiny Committee, which itself is a statutory body, being the creature of the 2000 Act.. The Court after examining the scheme of the legislation and the purport of these provisions, categorically held that the legislature consciously has avoided to confer any power of review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review/revisit its own decision even in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. It was observed that, in fact, this would defeat the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the 2000 Act. It was also observed that it cannot be countenanced that a Caste Scrutiny Committee assumes jurisdiction to review its orders merely on a complaint filed by any person and upset any earlier orders passed by it which would lead to an absurdity and not recognized by the legislation. The relevant observations of the Court in some detail are required to be noted which read thus:- “15. In the above circumstances, the issue which would fall for our consideration is whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee at all had jurisdiction to review its own decision granting caste validity certificate to the petitioners, including those granted under orders passed by this Court.

16. In this context, we need to examine the legislation under which the Caste Scrutiny Committee is constituted and is required to exercise its jurisdiction. The legislation is 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. The Act provides for the regulation of the issuance and verification of the caste certificates to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2 of the Act deals with the definitions such as caste certificates, competent authority, scrutiny committee, etc.

17. Section 4 of the Act requires the caste certificates to be issued by the competent authority. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Act states that a caste certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the competent authority shall be invalid. The caste certificate issued by the competent authority shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee. Section 5 of the Act deals with the provisions of appeal in case any person is aggrieved by an order of rejection of an application passed by the competent authority under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Section 6 of the Act deals with the verification of caste certificates by a Scrutiny Committee. ……….

21. The scheme of the Act as noticed from the aforesaid provisions would reveal that it would be the exclusive jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to consider the application for a caste validity certificate as provided for in Section 6. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 clearly provides that the orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee under this Act shall be final and shall not be challenged before any authority or Court except the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, against any order passedby the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the remedy for a person aggrieved is only to approach the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in no other manner.

22. We need to observe that there ought not to be any confusion between the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 7 and what has been provided in sub-section (2), for the reason that sub-section (1) deals with a situation that where, before or after the commencement of the Act, a person not belonging to any Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special Backward Category has obtained a false ‘Caste Certificate’ (not a validity certificate) to the effect that either himself or his children belong to such Castes, the Scrutiny Committee in such an event and in relation to the caste certificate, may suo motu, or otherwise call for the record and enquire into the correctness of ‘such certificate’ (caste certificate) and if it is the opinion that the caste certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall, by an order cancel and confiscate ‘the certificate’ by following such procedure as prescribed, after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard, and communicate the same to the concerned person and the concerned authority, if any.

23. When sub-section (1) of Section 7 uses the word caste certificate necessarily, the meaning of the same is required to be derived as per the definition of the caste certificate as contained in Section 2(a), which defines caste certificate to mean a certificate issued by any person, officer or authority other than the Competent Authority shall be invalid. The Caste Certificate issued by the Competent Authority shall be valid only subject to the verification and grant of validity certificate by the Scrutiny Committee.

24. Thus, a ‘caste certificate’ is certainly not a “caste validity certificate”, as issuance of a caste validity certificate is an independent exercise to be undertaken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee by exercising its quasi-judicial powers. It is hence clear that the power conferred on the Caste Scrutiny Committee under sub-section (1) of Section 7 to enquire into any false caste certificate and form an opinion that a caste certificate was obtained fraudulently and to cancel and confiscate the certificate as ordered in sub-section (1) of Section 7, cannot be read to mean that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has the power to review its own orders/decisions granting caste validity certificate in case of a complaint being made that the caste validity certificate has been obtained fraudulently by any applicant seeking validity of the caste certificate.

25. It is quite clear from the reading of sub-section (2) that not only such orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee under subsection (1) but orders passed by the Scrutiny Committee under the provisions of “the Act”, which would include a grant of a caste validity certificate, shall be final and cannot be challenged before any Authority or Court except the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This clearly infers that once a decision is taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee either under the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 7 or under the provisions of Section 6, the Caste Scrutiny Committee becomes functus officio, and such decision can only be assailed by approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be any other reading from the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 7.

26. Thus, from the scheme of the legislation it is clear that the Caste Scrutiny Committee would not have any jurisdiction to review/revisit its own orders and decisions granting caste validity certificates. This would also be clear from the reading of Section 9. It may also be observed that the legislature is conscious in making available limited powers of the Civil Court to the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority and the Scrutiny Committee, which are specifically enumerated in Section 9. The legislature has consciously avoided to confer the powers of a review as envisaged under Section 114, read with provisions of Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once such provision conferring powers of a review are excluded in their application to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, there is no question of such powers being conferred by any implication under any circumstances.

27. Considering the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 7, consciously, the legislature has not conferred powers on the authority issuing caste certificate to revisit the decision to issue caste certificate and cancel the same in view of fraud and misrepresentation. Such power is conferred on a higher authority, namely on the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The contention of the learned AGP that because the Caste Scrutiny Committee had issued validity certificate, it would have jurisdiction to revisit/review its decision when there is fraud and misrepresentation is totally untenable. As noted above, the legislature was fully conscious of the fact that a validity certificate could be obtained from the Caste Scrutiny Committee by playing fraud, however, consciously, the legislature has avoided to confer any power of review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review/revisit its own decision even in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. In fact, such an interpretation would defeat the mandate of sub-section (2) of Section 7.

28. It would need no emphasis 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.

29. If the contention, as urged on behalf of the respondent, that the Scrutiny Committee has jurisdiction to review its own decision/orders, although not expressly conferred by law, is accepted, the situation is just to be imagined, inasmuch as on any complaint alleging fraud and in respect of cases wherein the validity to a caste certificate has been continued by substantive orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee or under orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court, cannot be reopened by the Caste Scrutiny Committee on any complaint of fraud. This certainly is not the intention of the legislation to unsettle the concluded issues wherein the caste validity certificates are granted as per law and under orders passed by the higher Courts. It is for such reason the legislature has categorically avoided conferring any powers of review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee.

30. We are thus of the clear opinion that in the event a complaint being made in regard to any validity certificate granted by Caste Scrutiny Committee to be vitiated by fraud or illegality, the only course open to such a complainant or otherwise any person/authority is to approach the High Court by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution and seek its interference in setting aside the validity certificate granted in favour of such person in view of the clear provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. It is in such proceedings under Article 226 the Court would be required to apply its mind as to whether the allegations of fraud or any illegality are of such nature that the decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee was vitiated and is required to be set aside. This would assume more significance as a grant of caste validity certificate confers substantive rights on the person holding such certificate, by virtue of which a right in rem is conferred on such person on the basis of such caste validity certificate.

31. It cannot be countenanced that a Caste Scrutiny Committee assumes jurisdiction to review its orders merely on a complaint filed by any person and upsets the earlier orders passed by it. Thus, the proposition, as canvassed by the learned AGP, would lead not only to an absurdity but the proposition totally untenable in law and not recognized by the legislation.

32. Our above observations also find support in Akash Sanjay Gawali (supra), wherein it was held that: "6. The action of 2nd Respondent committee prima facie appears to be vindictive. It is also completely illegal. This committee has no suo motu power of review. In case after case, it seems to rely on a general principle that 'fraud vitiates everything' without realising the implications of this or how that fraud is to be detected, ascertained, proved and results based on such a finding. Perhaps this committee has no idea how difficult it is to actually prove fraud. A failure of proof is not fraud. That so-called 'fraud' must arise in the proceeding before it. It cannot be invoked like some mantra to confer on oneself a power of review over orders passed many years earlier, and which no one has called into question, about which there is no lis or proceeding, and which have all attained finality. This is so basic a concept in law that we are surprised that the committee is so utterly oblivious to it. To be plain: no one ever assailed the petitioner's father's and uncles' validity certificates on any ground. The committee had no power to suo motu re-open those validity certificates and call them into question. The committee's orders are not purely ministerial to admit of the narrow exception to the general rule that there is no inherent power of review.

7. We find it surprising that we have to repeatedly state that this committee has no suo motu power of review. None is conferred by statute. None can be necessarily inferred. The impugned order is entirely without jurisdiction.

8. This is also a case of the 2nd respondent committee inviting extreme censure for wholly overreaching this Court. Only because this Court in its order of 13 December 2018 in Writ Petition No. 10194 of 2018 entered a caveat that should the certificates of the uncles or father be recalled or set aside then the petitioner could not get any benefit, the 2nd respondent committee could not have seen this as an opportunity to go ahead and do something that was entirely outside its jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied)

33. It can be clearly noticed that it has been a consistent view in various decisions that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. There is no dispute whatsoever on this proposition and the Courts would be required to adhere to the mandate of what has been provided for in law i.e. sub-section (2) of Section 7 that the challenge to any decision taken under the Act by the Caste Scrutiny Committee can only be challenged before the High Court by Invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, it is a settled position in law that when substantive provisions are clear, such jurisdiction cannot be conferred by any subordinate legislation or by any executive fiat.

34. As the Caste Scrutiny Committee has no powers to review, there is no question of any suo motu powers to be exercised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee and in any exercise of such suo motu jurisdiction would be invalid, illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act.”

34. Despite the above clear position as held by this Court, Mr. Gangal, learned special counsel for the State would submit that although the provisions of the 2000 Act, do not expressly confer any power on the Caste Scrutiny Committee to review its own orders, nonetheless the Caste Scrutiny Committee has “inherent jurisdiction” to review its own orders. In support of such contention, Mr. Gangal has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Sangita Sharad Kolse (supra), which is a decision prior to the decision of the Division Bench in Apoorva d/o. Vinay Nichale (supra). After such decision, there are several decisions of this Court which has taken a consistent view that the statute (2000 Act) does not confer any powers of review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee and once such powers of review are not conferred, in such event, it cannot be held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee can exercise review jurisdiction on any other parameters, including on the issue of fraud. Thus, in our opinion, the decision of the Division Bench in Smt. Sangita Sharad Kolse (supra) would not assist Mr. Gangal.

35. Mr. Gangal has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in J. Chitra (supra) to contend that the Caste Scrutiny Committee would have a review jurisdiction. We are afraid to accept such contention, for the reason that the Supreme Court in this judgment, has in fact, referred to the very genesis of the 2000 Act which emanates from the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development & ors.12. In paragraphs 8 and 10 of the said decision, the Supreme Court has categorically observed that “the order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution”. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph 10 as relied by Mr. Gangal are not in regard to reopening of an inquiry or any power of review being conferred on the Caste Scrutiny Committee in relation to re-examining the “validity” of the past decisions of the Caste Scrutiny Committee, but the same are in relation to the reopening of inquiry into “tribe/caste certificates” if they are vitiated by fraud when they were issued without proper enquiry. The observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 8 and 10 need to be noted which read thus:- “8. In Dayaram, this Court was of the view that the Scrutiny Committee is an administrative body which verifies the facts and investigates into claims of caste status. The orders of the Scrutiny Committee are open to challenge in proceedings under. Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further held by this Court that permitting civil suits with provisions for appeals and further appeals would defeat the very scheme and will encourage the very evils which this Court wanted to eradicate. It was observed that the entire scheme in Madhuri Patil will only continue till the legislature concerned makes an appropriate legislation in regard to verification of claims for caste status as SC/ST. It was made clear that verification of caste certificates issued without prior inquiry would be verified by the Scrutiny Committees. Such of those caste certificates which were issued after due and proper inquiry need not to be verified by the Scrutiny Committees.

10. In the instant case, an inquiry was conducted by the District- Level Vigilance Committee which has upheld the community certificate in favour of the appellant. The decision of the District- Level Vigilance Committee in the year 1999 has not been challenged in any forum. The recognition of the community certificate issued in favour of the appellant by the District Vigilance Committee having become final, the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not have jurisdiction to reopen the matter and remand for fresh consideration by the District-Level Vigilance Committee. The guidelines issued by

G. O. No. 108 dated 12-09-2007 do not permit the State Level

Scrutiny Committee to reopen cases which have become final. The purpose of verification of caste certificates by Scrutiny Committees is to avoid false and bogus claims. Repeated inquiries for verification of caste certificates would be detrimental to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Reopening of inquiry into caste certificates can be only in the case they are vitiated by fraud or when they were issued without proper inquiry.”

36. Thus, the judgment of the Supreme Court in J. Chitra’s case is certainly not an authority which would hold that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has an inherent jurisdiction to exercise review powers and more particularly considering the observations that the re-opening of the enquiry can be only of the tribe/caste certificate and not Caste Validity Certificate as observed in paragraph 10 of the said decision.

37. Mr. Gangal’s next contention is to the effect that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rushikesh Bharat Garud vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra) permitted the Caste Scrutiny Committee to reopen the cases of all these petitioners. It is difficult to agree with Mr. Gangal. Mr. Gangal however fairly submits that the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud is itself an independent case, in which he has challenged the orders passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Also it is conceded that although his case is from same family it was not a case where review jurisdiction was being exercised by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. He would also fairly state that the independent writ petition filed by Rushikesh Bharat Garud questioning the decision as taken by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court in the said judgment would require independent adjudication. However, the emphasis of Mr. Gangal is on the observations of the Supreme Court as made in paragraphs 4 to 5. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. Gangal, it would be necessary to note the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Rushikesh Bharat Garud which reads thus:- “1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 11536 of 2021, by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein in which the appellant herein challenged the order passed by Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik (for short, ‘Scrutiny Committee’), invalidating the caste certificate issued to the appellant, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

2. We have heard Mr. Uday B. Dube, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Sachin Patil, learned Advocate appearing for the State of Maharashtra and the Scrutiny Committee.

3. From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that before the High Court the appellant heavily relied upon the validity certificates issued to his father Bharat Nagu Garud dated 14.01.2005 as well as to his cousins – Nilima Rohidas Garud dated 9.9.2005; Pravin Rohidas Garud dated 9.9.2005; Priyanka Rohidas Garud dated 20.09.2005; Rohidas Nago Garud dated 25.05.2011; and Ramdas Nagu Garud dated 07.12.2012. The aforesaid was also the case of the appellant herein before the Scrutiny Committee. However, the Scrutiny Committee while not accepting the above submission observed that when the appellant’s father's