WWW.LIVELAW.

IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 3370 OF 2018

Shri Anandra Vithoba Adsul

Age -71 years, Occu: Social Work,
R/o-5-B, Kadamgiri Apartment,
Ashok Nagar, Chakravarti Ashok Rd,
Kandivali (E), Bombay- 400001. … Petitioner

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra, through its

Department of Social Justice and
Social Welfare, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.

2. District Caste Scrutiny Committee,

Mumbai Sub Urban, Mumbai.

3. Miss. Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing

Kundles @ Mrs. Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana,
Presently residing at Room No. 600/C,
Marathwada Chawl, Hill No.2, Narayan
Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai -400 086. ... Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2019

Shri Raju Shamrao Mankar

Age -49 years, Occu: Social Work,
R/o-Boda Nagar, Near Arjun Nagar,
Amravati, Dist. Amravati. … Petitioner

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra, through its

Department of Social Justice and
Social Welfare, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.

2. District Caste Scrutiny Committee,

Mumbai Sub Urban, Mumbai.
5th Floor, New Administrative Building,

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Bandra, Mumbai.

3. Miss. Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing

Kundles @ Mrs. Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana,
Presently residing at Room No. 600/C,
Marathwada Chawl, Hill No.2, Narayan
Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai -400 086. ... Respondents
---
WITH
WRIT PETITION (LDG.) NO. 9426 OF 2020

Miss. Navneet Kaur Harbhajansing Kundles

@ Mrs. Navneet Kaur Ravi Rana, Age-35 years,
Occu. Social Work. R/at Room No. 600/C,
Marathwada Chawl, Hill No.2, Narayan Nagar,
Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai -400 086
At present residing at - Ganga Savitri Banglow,
Plot No. 50, Shankar Nagar, Rajapeth,
Amravati – 444-605. … Petitioner

V/s.

1. State of Maharashtra, through its

Department of Social Justice and
Social Welfare, Mantralaya,Mumbai-32.

2. District Caste Scrutiny Committee,

Mumbai Sub Urban, Mumbai.
Office at 5th Floor, New Administrative
Building, Bandra,Mumbai.

3. Shri Anandrao Adsul,

Daffodil Kalpataru Garden, Ashok Nagar,
Kandivali (E), Mumbai -400 101.

4. Raju Shamrao Mankar, Age : 55 years,

Occu. Social Worker, R/o. Boda Nagar,
Near Arjun Nagar, Amravati,
Dist. Amravati. … Respondents

---

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Mr. C. M. Korde, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sachin Thorat,

Mr.Shyamsunder Solanki, Ms. Komal Mestri, Advocates for the
Petitioner in WP/3370/2018 and Respondent No.3 in WPL/9426/2020.

Mr. Pramod Patil along with Mr. Sachin Thorat, Mr. Shyamsunder
Solanki, Mr. Ajit Hon, Ms. Komal Mestri, Advocates for the Petitioner
in WP/2675/2019 and Respondent No.4 in WPL/9426/2020.

Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Ashok T.

Gade, Mr.Sagar R. Jadhav, Mr. Navin B. Rathod, Advocates for the
Petitioner in WPL/9426/2020 and Respondent No.3 in WPL/3370.2918
and WP/2625/2018.

Mr. Sukanta Karmakar, Asst. Government Pleader, State, Advocate for

the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WP/3370/2018.

Mr. Kedar Dighe, Asst. Government Pleader, state, Advocate for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WP/2675/2019.

Mr. S.B. Gore, Asst. Government Pleader, state, Advocate for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in WPL/9426/2020.

Mr. Santosh Ramesh Bhise, Law officer, Cast Scrutiny Committee,

Mumbai Suburban present in Court.
---

CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &

V. G. BISHT, JJ.

RESERVED DATE : 9th April, 2021.

PRONOUNCED DATE : 8th June, 2021.

JUDGMENT [Per : R.D. DHANUKA,J.] :-

1. Rule, Respondents waive service. By consent of parties

petitions were heard finally and are being disposed off by a common
order. By Writ Petition No. 3370 of 2018 the Petitioner has impugned
the order passed by the District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
Mumbai Suburban, dated 03.11.2017 (Respondent No.2), validating

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

the caste claim of Respondent No.3 s “Mochi” - Scheduled Caste and

prayed for quashing and setting side the caste certificate dated
30.08.2013 issued by the Deputy Collector, Mumbai in favour of
Respondent No. 3.

2. Writ Petition No 2675 of 2019 is filed by one Raju Shamrao

Mankar, interalia praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing and
setting aside the order dated 03.11.2017 passed by Respondent No. 2,
District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban in
favour of Respondent No. 3. The reliefs claimed in this writ petition
are identical to the reliefs claimed in Writ Petition No. 3370 of 2018.

3. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.9426 of 2020 is filed by Mrs.

Navneet Kaur Harbhajansingh Kundles, who is Respondent No. 3 in
Writ Petition Nos. 3370 of 2018 and 2675 of 2019, interalia praying
for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the finding at
para-4 in respect of non-consideration of Petitioner’s oldest documents
of the year 1894-1895, 1920-1921, 1936-1937, 1940-1941, 1944-1945
in the impugned judgment and order dated 03.11.2017 passed by the
District Caste Scrutiny Committee, Mumbai Suburban. The Petitioner
has also prayed for declaration that those oldest documents also
support and establish the caste claim of the Petitioner as Mochi
(Schedule Caste). The Petitioner has prayed for declaration that
School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner’s Kartika High School
and Junior College, Kurla also establishes the caste of Petitioner as
Mochi (SC).

4. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding these

three writ petitions are as under :-

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

5. It is the case of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3370 of 2018

that he belongs to Hindu-Chambhar Caste, which is recognized as a
Scheduled Caste, and had contested the parliamentary Election in
the year 2014 from Amravati Constituency, which was reserved for the
Scheduled Caste Category and was elected from the said reserved
constituency. Respondent No. 3 had also contested the said election
from the said constituency. The Petitioner was elected as a member
of the parliament for the first time in the year 1996 for the 11 th Lok
Sabha tenure and again in the year 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014
respectively and was elected as a Member of Parliament. The
Petitioner was also the Union Minister of State Finance and Company
Affairs and at present he is Member of Parliament. It is the case of the
Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 with an intention to contest the
Parliamentary Election -2014 from Amravati constituency, reserved for
Scheduled Caste, started taking steps with the help of forged and
fabricated documents.

6. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 3 asked her

father one Harbhajansingh Ramsingh Kundles to create records that
could be used by her for obtaining caste validity certificate. The father
of Respondent No. 3 accordingly applied to the Gram-Panchayat,
Ganja -Dhekale, Tal. Palghar, Dist. Thane to include his name in the
birth – register maintained by the said Grampanchayat on 02.07.2012.
The father of Respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit on 10.07.2012,
mentioning therein that his birth took place in the said village on
17.04.1949. It is the case of the Petitioner that date of birth of the
father of the Respondent No. 3 was not 17.04.1949 but it was
17.04.1954, as per the various documents submitted by him like PAN
Card and his Passport etc. and his place of birth is “Khokhara-

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Punjab”. The father of the Respondent No. 3 obtained various

documents fraudulently.

7. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 3 used those

forged and fabricated documents and declared herself as reserved
category candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste while contesting
the said Parliamentary Election of 2014 from Amravati constituency,
reserved for Scheduled Caste. The Office of the Deputy Collector,
Mumbai District Suburban granted caste certificate dated 30.08.2013
of “Mochi” to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 thereafter
submitted an application before the Respondent No. 2 Committee for
obtaining Caste Validity Certificate. She also made an application to
the Headmaster of Chetna College, Bandra and the purpose for
certificate mentioned was for employment as “Junior Clerk” in the
said college. Respondent No. 3 submitted various documents in
support of her claim as belonging to Mochi Caste under the Scheduled
Caste Category.

8. It is the case of the Petitioner that without referring to the

documents submitted by Respondent No. 3 to the Vigilance Cell for
enquiry, the Respondent No. 2 Committee passed an order on
11.09.2013, validating the caste claim of Respondent No. 3. It is the
case of the Petitioner that Respondent No. 2 Committee had already
signed the said order on 11.09.2013. The Scrutiny Committee
however, mentioned in the said order that file was put up before the
members of the said Committee in the meeting held on 25.09.2013.
According to the Petitioner the said caste validity certificate was
obtained under the influence of the husband of Respondent No. 3,
namely, Mr. Ravi Rana, who was a Member of Legislative Assembly.

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

9. One Mr. Raju Mankar, who is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.
2675 of 2019 and Jayant Vanjari filed the complaints before
Respondent No. 2 Committee and requested to cancel the said caste
validity certificate issued in favour of Respondent No. 3. Alongwith
the said complaints, the said two Complainants submitted various
documents. Respondent No. 2 by its order dated 29.01.2014 referred
those documents submitted by the complainants to the Vigilance
Cell. The complainants also submitted a letter issued by the Education
Officer dated 16.12.2013 stating that the School in which the father of
Respondent No. 3 had said to have studied was not in existence at the
time of issuance of the said certificates.

10. On 12.02.2014 the Vigilance Cell submitted a report before

Respondent No. 2 Committee and pointed out that the said School
Leaving Certificate submitted by the father of Respondent No. 3 was
forged and fabricated one. Respondent No. 2 Committee issued a
show cause notice upon Respondent No. 3, asking her to show cause
as to why the said caste validity certificate issued in her favour should
not be cancelled inasmuch as the same was obtained by producing
false and fabricated documents.

11. Respondent no. 3 submitted various new documents before the

Respondent No. 2 Committee in response to the said show cause
notice. Respondent No. 3 submitted her application before
Respondent No. 2 Committee and made a grievance against the
officers of Vigilance Cell and made a request to change those
officers. The Scrutiny Committee appointed a new Vigilance Cell
Officer at the request of Respondent No. 3. On 16.04.2014, the

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Vigilance Cell Officer duly appointed by the Scrutiny Committee

submitted a fresh report before Respondent No. 2 Committee. It is the
case of the Petitioner that even in the said fresh report submitted by
the Vigilance Cell Officer, it was accepted that the School entry of
“Mochi” was made in the School Leaving Certificate issued by
Kartika School little later i.e. in the year 2013. The Vigilance Cell
also observed that the School in which the father of the Respondent
No. 3 claimed to have studied was not in existence at the relevant
time. The Authorities of Khalsa College did not show the original
register to the Vigilance Cell to verify the document submitted by the
father of Respondent No. 3.

12. Some time in the yer 2015 Mr. Raju Mankar filed a Civil Writ
Petition No 325 of 2014 in this Court, inter-alia, challenging the grant
of caste validity certificate issued pursuant to the order dated
25.09.2013. By an order dated 28.06.2017 passed by this court, the
said caste validity certificate dated 25.09.2013 issued by the
Respondent No. 2 Committee came to be set aside. In the said writ
petition no. 325 of 2014, this Court directed the Respondent No. 2
Committee to give an opportunity of hearings to the parties and to take
decision in accordance with the law. In the meanwhile, the
Respondent No. 2 Committee also rejected the complaints filed by
Raju Mankar and Jayant Vanjari by observing that once validity
certificate is issued the same cannot be withdrawn and /or cancelled.

13. The Complainants as well as Respondent no. 3 thereafter

appeared before the Respondent No. 2 Committee. Respondent No. 3
again submitted various documents before the Respondent No. 2
Committee in support of her caste claim. The complainants also

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

submitted various documents to show as to how the caste claim

submitted by Respondent No. 3 was based on false and fabricated
documents.

14. On 03.11.2017, the Respondent No. 2 Committee accepted the

caste claim of Respondent No. 3 only on two documents i.e. bonafide
certificate issued by Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce in
which the caste of Respondent No. 3 was mentioned as “Sikh
Chamar” and Rent Agreement which corroborates proof of residence
appearing under the Khalsa College Register, which also mentioned
address of forefathers of the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner in Writ
Petition No. 3370 of 2018 and Writ Petition No. 2675 of 2019 have
impugned the said caste validity certificate in these Writ Petitions.

15. Mr. Korde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in writ
petition no.3370 of 2018 invited our attention to various documents
annexed to the writ petitions and also in a separate compilation of
documents, various provisions which would apply to the facts of this
case and various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this
Court in support of his submissions. The learned senior counsel also
submitted written submissions for consideration of this Court.

16. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that respondent

no.3 had obtained Caste Validity Certificate from respondent no.2-
Committee by relying upon large number of fraudulent and
fabricated documents. All the documents relied upon by the respondent
no.3 were rejected by the respondent no.2-Committee except two
documents which were also fabricated and fraudulent. He submits that
the said Caste Validity Certificate dated 30 th August, 2013 was

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

granted to the respondent no.3 on the basis of -

(i) Application of the respondent no.3 dated 26th August, 2013.
(ii) School Leaving / Bonafide Certificate issued by the Head
Master / Principal of Kartika High School and Junior College, Kurla.
(iii) Affidavit dated 26th August, 2013.
(iv) Photocopy of ration card.
(v) Caste Certificate of the father of respondent no.3 carried out
dated 30th July, 2013 issued by Deputy Collector.
(vi) Other certificates obtained by the father of the respondent no.3.
(vii) Other affidavits relied upon by the respondent no.3 and
(viii) Birth Certificate of the respondent no.3.

17. In so far as school leaving / bonafide certificate of respondent

no.3 issued by the Head Master / Principal of Kartika High School
and Junior College, Kurla is concerned, it is submitted by the learned
senior counsel that the said certificate was a duplicate certificate issued
on 21st August, 2013. Though the respondent no.3 had the original
school leaving certificate, she did not produce the original for the
perusal of the respondent no.2-Committee at the time of hearing. The
husband of the respondent no.3-Mr.Ravi Rana (M.L.A.) had
addressed a letter dated 7th August, 2013 to the management of the
school which mentioned that the original school leaving certificate
did not mention the caste of the respondent no.3. He submits that in
the said letter dated 7th August, 2013, the husband of the respondent
no. 3 suppressed the fact that he was married to respondent no.3. The
application for admission dated 23rd April, 1991 which was signed by
the mother of the respondent no.3 had the following entries :-

(1) Caste with sub-caste and religion - “Sikh”

10

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

(2) Whether a number of scheduled caste /tribe and documentary

evidence thereof – ‘Sikh N.A.B.C.’

18. It is submitted that the duplicate school leaving certificate was

contrary to the statements signed by the mother of the respondent
no.3. Insofar as the photocopy of the ration card no.0652295 produced
by the respondent no.3 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned
senior counsel that the said document would clearly show that the
original words “Rajinder Kaur” had been cancelled and the words
“Rajinder Kaur Harbhajan Singh Kundles Mochi” had been added
subsequently. In the letter dated 18th December, 2013 the Information
Officer-cum-Rationing Officer had stated that the caste “Mochi” had
not been mentioned by his office in the ration card. He submits that
the said ration card no.0652295 was tampered with.

19. In so far as the caste certificate of the father of respondent no.3

bearing no.1173 dated 30th July, 2013 issued by the Deputy Collector,
Mumbai Sub-urban District is concerned, it is submitted by the
learned senior counsel that the said certificate was obtained on the
basis of the fabricated documents. The said certificate had been set
aside by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 3 rd November,
2017. He invited our attention to the said order dated 3 rd November,
2017 at Ex.HH of the petition.

20. In so far as the school leaving certificate of the father of

respondent no.3 bearing no.11166 is concerned, it is submitted that
the said document is also fabricated. The said school which is
supposed to have issued the said certificate was not in existence at
the relevant time. He relied upon the letter dated 16 th December, 2013

11

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

issued by the Education Officer, Mumbai Municipal Corporation

and would submit that from the said letter it would be clear that the
said school alleged to have issued the school leaving certificate was
not in existence at the relevant time. The said school leaving
certificate of the father mentions that he had joined the school in
1954 and 1958. The said school had not issued the said certificate.

21. In so far as the Birth Certificate of the respondent no. 3 issued

on 3rd January, 2013 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior
counsel that the said document mentioned the name of father of
respondent no. 3 as Mr.Harbhajansingh Ravisingh Kundles Mochi.
He submits that the original record had been altered by adding the
words “ Kundles Mochi” in the name of her father from 3 rd January,
2013 and the Medical Officer, Health, “N” Word had put his
signature and rubber stamp. The original birth certificate of
respondent no.3 also did not mention the caste “Mochi”. He submits
that the respondent no.3 had managed to get two documents namely
school leaving certificate and birth certificate altered. The entry
showing the caste in the ration card was fabricated. The school
leaving certificate of the father was also fabricated.

22. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention
to the explanation given by respondent no.3 to the respondent no.2 –
Committee in respect of the said school leaving certificate of the
father of the respondent no.3. It was the case of the respondent no.3
before the respondent no.2-Committee that the said school leaving
certificate of the father of the respondent no.3 was found in the old
record of her house and the same was submitted in support of the
claim of the respondent no.3 before the said committee as well as

12

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

before the competent office of Sub-divisional Officer while

obtaining caste certificate. The respondent no.3 did not have
personal information regarding issuance of the said school leaving
certificate in the name of the father. Being an oldest document the
same was submitted as it is, as it was requisite document of her
father. It is submitted that the said explanation given by the respondent
no.3 and further excuse given by her to disown her responsibility of
the fabricated document produced by the father on the pretext that
father had broken up relation with her after her marriage was
completely false.

23. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that some time

prior to 18th July, 2013, the father of the respondent no.3 had applied
for the caste certificate to Tahasildar, Palghar inter-alia relying on
the school leaving certificate no.11046 which itself was a fabricated
document and on the basis that his place of birth was Thane and
date of birth was 17th April, 1949. On 18th July, 2013 the said
application filed by the father of the respondent no.3 was rejected by
Additional District Collector and Additional District Registrar. On
25th July, 2013 the father of respondent no.3 made another
application for caste certificate to Deputy Collector, Mumbai Sub-
Urban District by enclosing earlier school leaving certificate bearing
no.11166 which was again a fabricated document and a copy of the
ration card which was a tampered document. On 30 th July, 2013 the
Deputy Collector issued a caste certificate in favour of the father of
the respondent no.3.

24. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that on 30 th

August, 2013 the respondent no.3 made an application for a caste

13

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

certificate and annexed her father’s caste certificate dated 30 th July,

2013, photocopy of the school leaving certificate of her father
bearing no.11166 which school leaving certificate was attached by her
father to his application which was made on 25 th July, 2013 and also
submitted a photocopy of the ration card. He submits that the
documents produced by the respondent no.3 herself would clearly
indicate that respondent no.3 and her father were acting in collusion
with each other and conclusively shows that the respondent no.3 had
submitted the fabricated / tampered documents in support of her caste
claim. These documents would also create grave doubt about the
creditability of respondent no.3. He submits that the respondent no.3
is even today relying upon her duplicate school leaving certificate.

25. In so far as the certificate dated 11th February, 2014 issued by

the Principal Gurunanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science and
Commerce annexed at page 333 on the basis of which the said
certificate was issued, it is submitted that the entry 486 relating to
Ramsingh Budhiya ( aged grand-father of respondent no.3) in the
Khalsa college register is a suspect and fabricated entry. He
submits that perusal of the said documents would clearly indicate
that the said entry is in a different ink and is in a different
handwriting from entry in the serial number 485 on the same page.
He relied upon Vigilance Cell Report dated 10 th March, 2014 and
would submit that the said Vigilance Cell Report had clearly observed
that even those entries at serial nos. 485 and 486 though were made
on the same day, there was difference in the handwriting and the ink
of the said two entries. There was overwriting in entry no.485. New
dated page of the admission register starts with entry relating to
students who took admission in F.Y. Arts and starts with serial no.1.

14

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

That the said entry appears exactly at the only spot where it was
possible to make a subsequent addition which was not a mere co-
incidence.

26. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the name of

the “school last attended” is deliberately kept vague. The name is
mentioned as “municipal school” without giving any further details
of the said school such as location etc. This appears to have been done
in the light of the explanations of the father of the respondent no.3 in
fabricating his school leaving certificate of the school which was
subsequently discovered to be not in existence at the time where he
was supposed to have attended the said school.

27. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that even though a

request was made by the Vigilance Cell to the Vice-Principal of the
college who allegedly produced the said register for inspection of the
register, the said request was rejected by the respondent no.2-
Committee. The said Vice-Principal informed the respondent no.2-
Committee that he was not in a position to say anything whether the
said entry was made in the year 1996 or later. In his alternate
arguments, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the
probative value of the said register is insignificant, particularly in the
light of the fact that respondent no.3 had produced a clear fabricated /
tampered documents in support of her caste claim.

28. In so far as the alleged Indenture of Tenancy dated 20 th July,

1932 relied upon by the respondent no.3 is concerned, it is
vehemently submitted by the learned senior counsel that the said
alleged Indenture of Tenancy was in respect of a small space “3ft. x 4

15

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

ft.”(otla) near the staircase on the ground floor of the building

belonging to the alleged landlord. He submits that it is impossible to
believe that in the year 1932 any owner would have entered into a
written agreement like such indenture of tenancy, if he could be a
cobbler on rent of Rs.1 and 8 annas per month, a small space of 3 ft.
x 4 ft. near the staircase of the ground floor of his building.

29. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that it is

unthinkable that in the year 1932 in any tenancy agreement the term
“compensation” or “royalty” would ever be mentioned. These terms
came into use only when a practice started giving a premises on leave
or license basis or conducting basis to escape rigours of the Bombay
Rents Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947. The only
terms which would be mentioned in a tenancy agreement executed
in 1932 would be “rent. Nobody would ever think of compensation”
or “royalty” in the context of a tenancy agreement in the year 1932.
He submits that the fabrication took place much later that is sometime
before the said document was produced by the respondent no.3
before the respondent no.2- Committee on 12th February, 2014. The
person who fabricated the document used terms like
“compensation”, “royalty” with which he was familiar, without
realizing that such terms would never have been used in the year
1932 in the tenancy agreement.

30. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3 had not even explained
as to how she had custody of the said mysterious documents. Such a
written agreement in the year 1932 was only unnecessary. He placed
reliance on the statement of objects and reasons dated 7 th February,
1973 and would submit that the said objects and reasons would clearly

16

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

show that the concept of “leave and license” started only after 1947.

31. Learned senior counsel invited Court’s attention to the affidavit

of Radha Banwarilal Adukiya which was tendered at the last hearing
of the scrutiny committee on 27th October, 2017. He submits that there
was no vigilance inquiry in respect of the said document. The said
affidavit of Radha Banwarilal Adukiya clearly showed the extent to
which the respondent no.3 had gone in fabricating a false case. He
submits that the said alleged tenancy agreement was thus ex-facie
fabricated document and would expose the method of fabricating
documents habitually followed by the respondent no.3. He submits
that the said alleged affidavit of Radhadevi Adukiya was tailor-made
affidavit confirming the alleged tenancy in favour of the great grand-
father of the respondent no.3.

32. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the

application filed by the respondent no.3 was on the basis that
respondent no.3 belongs to scheduled caste known as “Mochi,” the
said two documents i.e. the entry in the Khalsa college admission
register and the tenancy agreement dated 28 th July, 1932 are genuine
and would support the said application for caste certificate for caste
“Mochi”. The said two documents strongly relied upon by the
respondent no.3 did not describe the alleged grand-father of the
respondent no.3 as “Mochi” but as “Sikh Chamar”.

33. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Parsram and Anr. v/s.
Shivchand, 1969 AIR SC 597 and more particularly on paragraph
no.7 and would submit that the Supreme Court in the said judgment

17

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

had clearly held that the applicant therein was found to be “Mochi”
and not a “Chamar” and therefore, his mentioned prayer was rightly
rejected. He tried to prove by evidence that he was “Chamar”, but
did not succeed therein. He submits that the term “Sikh Chamar” is
different from the term “Chamar”. The terms “Chamar” and “Sikh
Chamar” are not synonymous. The term “Chamar” is not
synonymous with the term “Mochi”. In support of these submissions
learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgments of the Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra and
Anr. Vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone and Anr., 2020 SCC OnLine
1040 and in case of Bharati Balkrishna Dhangade, 2012 (1) SCC
566.

34. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon pedigree
tables which are relied upon by the respondent no.3 in the writ
petition (l) no. 9426 of 2020 filed by her which according to
respondent no.3 described the predecessors of respondent no.3 as
belonging to the caste “Ravidasiya Mochi”. He submits that even if it
is assumed for the sake of arguments, the caste of respondent no.3
was “Ravidasiya Mochi”, the same is not mentioned in the
scheduled to the presidential order as amended from time to time.
The term “Ravidasiya Mochi” cannot be read as “Mochi”. He relied
upon entry No.11 which refers to “Mochi”, “Telgu Mochi”, “Kamati
Mochi.” He submits that the said entry does not specify “Ravidasiya
Mochi”. The said entry provides for “Pardeshi Chamar” but does not
provide for “Sikh Chamar”. The respondent no.3 has destroyed her
own case by claiming “Ravidasiya Mochi” . The term “Ravidasiya
Mochi” is not the same as the term “Mochi”. The learned senior
counsel relied upon the Constitution (Scheduled Caste Order)

18

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Amendment Act, 2007.

35. It is submitted by learned senior counsel that the “Jamabandi”

extract of village-Khokhar , Taluka-Chankaur, District-Rupnagar,
Ropar annexed at Ex. BB to the petition and the pedigree /kursinama
of the year 2004 and 2009 would clearly show that respondent no.3
belongs to caste “labana–Garha” which is at the most Other Backward
Caste (O.B.C.), in the state of Punjab and not recognized in the State
of Maharashtra. The vigilance report dated 9th October, 2017 had
verified that the said documents were as per the original records of
village “Khokhar”. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to
the statement of Mr.Amarsingh Magarsingh dated 3rd April, 2014,
statement of Ajitsingh Ramkishan dated 3rd April, 2014 and
statement of Charanjit Kaur Jagirsingh recorded by Vigilance Cell
stating that Harbhajansingh Kundles was of chamar community and
doing business in Mumbai. He was also recognized “Ravidasiya
Mochi”.

36. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Rule 3, Sub-rule (1)

of the Maharashtra Schedule Tribes Regulation of Issuance of
Verification of Certificate Rules, 2003 and would submit that the
deemed date was 10th August, 1950. The certificate would be issued to
the permanent residents on the deemed date. He relied upon Rule (4)
which prescribes the procedure required to be followed by the
competent authority for grant of certificate or rejection of application
for Scheduled Tribe Certificate. The father of the respondent no.3 had
falsely mentioned as 1949 as the year of his birth.

19

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

37. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the respondent

no.3 could not be “Sikh Chamar” and also “Ravidasiya Mochi” at
the same time. The schedule does not mention “Sikh Chamar” or
“Ravidasiya Mochi” as scheduled caste. He submits that the inclusion
of any entry in the schedule can be read as it is. The Court cannot
interpret the entries in the scheduled caste and schedule tribes orders.
No enquiry is permissible to be made by the Court whether
‘Ravidasiya Mochi” falls within the caste ‘Mochi.’ The respondent
no.2 committee thus could not have granted any certificate to the
respondent no.3 as ‘Mochi.’

38. Mr.Pramod Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ

Petition No.2675 of 2019 adopted the submissions made by Mr.
Korde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.3370 of 2018. He tendered brief written submissions,
compilation of judgments and also the documents for perusal and
consideration of this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel that
the respondent no.3 and her family cannot be said to be residents of
State of Maharashtra or the erstwhile Mumbai State (part of which is
now in the State of Maharashtra) prior to the deemed date i.e. 10 th
August 1950. The so called entries in the register of Khalsa college in
respect of Ramsingh in the year 1946 and the bonafide certificate
issued in his favour on that basis where his date of birth is mentioned
as 27th July 1928 and place of birth is mentioned as Bombay and
the so called indenture of tenancy purportedly executed between
Jamnadas Chunilal Adukia and Budhia Roda in the year 1932 are
false and fabricated or manufactured documents.

20

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

39. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited our attention to the
application dated 30th August 2013 made by the respondent no.3 to
the Competent Authority for issuance of caste certificate of “Mochi”
caste. The said application is required to be submitted in the statutory
Form No.1 prescribed under Rule 4 (1) along with affidavit. In
column No.1, it is stated that her current address is Ghatkopar,
Mumbai. Current occupation is blank, traditional occupation is
mentioned as Cobbler. In column 2(a) father’s name is stated
Harbhajan Singh R. Kundles and address is same as in column No.1.
His current occupation is blank and traditional occupation is mentioned
as Cobbler. In column 3, caste claim is mentioned as “Mochi”
Scheduled Caste. In column 4(a), original place of residence is
mentioned as “Ghatkopar.” In column 4(e), place of birth and district
is mentioned as “Ghatkopar, Mumbai.”

40. In column 6, the name of original place of residence of

candidate’s parents is mentioned as Room No.600/C, Marathwada
Chawl, Hill No.2, Ghatkopar which is same as mentioned in column
nos.1 to 4. The said Form specifically prescribes that a candidates of
Scheduled Caste who produced evidence of the residence prior to
deemed date i.e. 10th August 1950. Learned counsel also pointed out
various details mentioned by the respondent no.3 in the application
dated 5th September 2013 made by the respondent no.3 to the
respondent no.2 Committee for issuance of validity certificate.

41. It is submitted that the documents produced by the respondent

no.3 including pan card, two passports would clearly falsify the story
of the respondent no.3 that her family migrated from Punjab to
Maharashtra before the deemed date of 10 th August 1950 and that her

21

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

father’s current occupation, education and place of residence

mentioned in the Application forms submitted to competent authority
and scrutiny committee were also false. The respondents had alleged
that her family migrated from Punjab to Maharashtra in the year
1946. In the bonafide certificate dated 11 th February 2014 of
Ramsingh Budhia based on the purported entries in admission
register of Khalsa college stating therein that his date of Birth is 27 th
July 1928 and place of Birth is Bombay would clearly show falsity
of those documents produced by the respondent no.3.

42. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the legislation namely

“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 came into force in the
State of Maharashtra w.e.f. 18th October 2001 (For short the said
“Caste Certificate Act”). He submits that prior to the said Act having
come into force, the procedure was as per the guidelines issued by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.
Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241.
However, in view of the said judgment, State of Maharashtra has
enacted the said Caste Certificate Act, from and after 18 th October
2001, prescribing the procedure to be followed as per the said Act and
the Rules framed thereunder. He relied upon Section 7 of the said Act
and would submit that the respondent no.2 committee is bound to
cancel and confiscate a caste certificate which is obtained
fraudulently.

22

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

43. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the
entries pertaining to a particular State is phonetically similar, the
said entry would not be relevant for the purpose of considering the
caste claim in another State. The entries in the Punjab schedule
showing a particular caste as Schedule Caste is not relevant for the
State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on Rule 4 and Rule 16 of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012
and would submit that the respondent no.3 was required to submit
the documents in compliance with those Rules before the Scrutiny
Committee. In her affidavit-in-reply, the respondent no.3 had alleged
that since the date of her marriage, she has been staying in Amravati.
She did not give any reply to the averments made in paragraph 5(B)
of the writ petition. He submits that both the documents relied upon
by the Scrutiny Committee while issuing the caste validity certificate
to the respondent no.3 are false.

44. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgment of this Court in the case of Kesharben Murji Patel Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 562 and in
particular paragraphs 105, 112 and 113 and various other judgments
forming part of the compilation as under :-
(i) S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. &
Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1;
(ii) Chaturbhuj Pande and Ors. Vs. Collector, Raigarh, AIR
1969 SC 255;
(iii) Juwarsingh and Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1981 SC 373;
(iv) Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala,
AIR 1990 SC 2192;

23

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

(v) Rajendra s/o Shivram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2019

(4) MH.L.J. 721 and ;
(vi) Rajendra s/o Shivram Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra
delivered on 5th December 2012 in Writ Petition No.4918 of 2012.

45. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respondent

no.3 invited our attention to various documents forming part of the
record, various findings rendered by the Scrutiny Committee in the
impugned order, relevant provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act
and the Rules. He also tendered compilation of judgments for
consideration of this Court.

46. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that the
respondent no.2 committee did not rely upon any of the documents in
respect of which objections were raised by the petitioners in the
impugned order passed by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2
committee only relied upon two documents i.e. (i) Tenancy document
and (ii) bona-fide certificate of the grandfather of the respondent no.3.
Neither of the petitioner had challenged the validity of any of these two
documents before the Scrutiny Committee. This Court while exercising
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot
take judicial notice of these additional documents.

47. It is submitted that these two documents were admitted by the

petitioners before the Scrutiny Committee and thus cannot be allowed
to challenge these documents in the writ petition for the first time. The
petitioners had challenged the caste validity certificate of the father of
the respondent no.3 who stays at USA. The said caste validity
certificate was invalidated ex-parte and thus could not have been

24

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

relied upon by the petitioners. It is within the exclusive power of the

Scrutiny Committee to interpret any document to find out whether the
caste claimed by the applicant was within the schedule prescribed in
the Constitution of India or not. The Scrutiny Committee has not
inserted any such entry in the schedule to the Constitution of India as
sought to be canvassed by the petitioners.

48. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 invited our
attention to sections 4(2), 6, 7, 8, 9 of the said Caste Certificate Act
and Rules 11, 12, 13(2) (a), (b) of the said Caste Certificate Rules and
would submit that the caste validity certificate issued by the respondent
no.2 in favour of the respondent no.3 is after complying with all the
aforesaid provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act 2000 and Caste
Certificate Rules. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Vasant Pandurang
Narwade @ Narvade vs. Suhash 2001 (10) JT 125 and in particular
paragraph 3 and would submit that the Scrutiny Committee has to
return a finding as to whether or not the applicant belongs to reserved
caste or not on the basis of the certificates and other documents
produced by him at the stage of considering the application.

49. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on an unreported

judgment delivered on 28th January, 2015 in case of Minakshi
Manohar Gholap @ Ms.Priyanka Suryakant Shrungare vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Petition No.2204 of 2014 and would submit that merely because
several documents were not believed to support respondent no.3, that
would not be a ground for not considering the other important
documents which could have thrown light on the controversy. The

25

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

petitioners not having raised objection to those two documents which

have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee within its power to
consider those documents cannot object to those documents now.
Merely because objection raised by the petitioners in respect of the
other documents was accepted by the Scrutiny Committee, on that
ground, the petitioners cannot be allowed to canvass that other two
documents which were though not disputed by the petitioners ought to
have been rejected by the Scrutiny Committee on the same basis.

50. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the findings

rendered by the respondent no.2 Committee in respect of the
documents which were produced by the respondent no.3 and
considered by the Scrutiny Committee while validating the caste claim
filed by the respondent no.3. He submits that the document i.e. at serial
no.3 “bonafide certificate dated 11th February, 2014 was issued by the
Principal, Guru Nanak Khalsa College of Arts and Science, Mumbai
which has been considered by the Scrutiny Committee was not
objected by the petitioners. The said document was held admissible.
The respondent no.2 Scrutiny Committee has recorded a finding that
no objection in respect of the said document was raised by the
petitioners. The said finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee is
final. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even in the writ
petition filed by both these petitioners, it is not the ground raised that
though the objection in respect of the said document at serial no.3 was
raised by the petitioners before the respondent no.2 Committee, the
respondent no.2 Committee has wrongly held that there was no dispute
raised by the petitioners in respect of the said document.

26

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

51. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 invited our
attention to the finding rendered by the respondent no.2 Committee in
respect of “revenue stamp paper of rent agreement in the year 1932 in
the name of great grandfather of the respondent no.3 viz. Budhia Roda
and would submit that even in respect of the said document, no
objection, oral or written had been raised by any of the petitioners
before the Scrutiny Committee. The said finding recorded by the
Scrutiny Committee that there were no objections by either of the
petitioner in respect of the said document also has attained finality.
Even in respect of the said document, the petitioners have not raised
any ground in the writ petition that the said finding was wrongly
recorded or was factually incorrect.

52. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas
Shrinivas Nayak & Anr. (1982) 2 SCC 463 and in particular paragraph
4 and would submit that the Court cannot make an enquiry as to what
transpired in the proceedings before the authority. The Court is bound
to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment as to
what transpired in the Court. If a party thinks that the happenings in
Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent
upon the party, while the matter is still afresh in the mind of the
Judges, to call the attention of the very Judges who have made the
record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct
was a statement that had been made in error. He submits that the
petitioners not having rightly made any application before the
respondent no.2 Committee for correction of the alleged statement
recorded in the impugned order or not having been raised in such
ground in the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

27

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

India cannot be allowed to raise any objection in respect of those two

documents.

53. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this

Court in case of Niraj Kamlakar More vs. Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, 2012 (5) Mh.L.J. 367 and in
particular paragraphs, 4, 6, 9, 12 and 13 and would submit that the
issue involved in the said judgment has been referred to the Larger
Bench in a case reported in 2019 (4) Mh.L.J. 721 however on different
point. The said judgment continues to hold the field. He submits that
the caste certificate produced by the applicant is subject to verification
and confirmation by the Caste Validity Scrutiny Committee under the
provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Caste
Certificate Rules 2012. He submits that after remand of the matter by
this Court to the respondent no.2 Committee, a report was obtained
from the Vigilance Cell. After considering the said report from the
Vigilance Cell, the respondent no.2 Committee considered only two
documents in respect of which no objection was raised by either of the
petitioners.

54. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to some of the

averments made by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2675 of 2019
filed by Raju S. Mankar, who was the original complainant. He
submits that the entire petition filed by the original complainant would
clearly indicate that the findings rendered by the respondent no.2
Committee that those two documents were not objected by the
petitioners has not been controverted or challenged in the entire
petition.

28

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

55. Learned senior counsel invited our attention to the order dated
28th June, 2017 passed by the Division of this Court in Writ Petition
No.325 of 2015 filed by Raju S. Mankar, the original complainant and
the petitioner in writ petition No.2675 of 2019 and would submit that
by the said order this Court had set aside the earlier caste validity
certificate on the ground that the said validity certificate was granted in
favour of the respondent no.3 without following the procedure
prescribed by law i.e. without calling the report from the Vigilance
Cell. After passing of the said order by this Court, the Scrutiny
Committee had rendered opportunities to all the parties to place
relevant documents in respect of their respective stand and had taken
decision in accordance with law. He submits that after passing of the
order of remand, the petitioners did not raise any objection before the
respondent no.2 Committee.

56. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that in any event the
Vigilance Cell report cannot be considered as a piece of evidence. He
invited out attention to the averments made by the petitioner in
affidavit-in-rejoinder filed in Writ Petition No.3370 of 2018 and more
particularly in paragraphs 6 to 10 and would submit that the petitioner
himself had admitted that the alleged Indenture of Tenancy was not
objected in view of the advice of the counsel as the said aspect was not
realized earlier. He submits that the petitioners thus cannot be allowed
to carry out this exercise for the first time across the bar in the writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

57. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Rule 13 of the said

Caste Certificate Rules and would submit that the Vigilance Cell is not
empowered to record any conclusion or opinion. Vigilance Cell report

29

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

is meant only for the internal assistance of the Scrutiny Committee. It

is within the exclusive domain of the Scrutiny Committee to adjudicate
upon the caste claim. The opinion expressed and findings recorded, if
any, by the Vigilance Officer would not be binding on the Scrutiny
Committee nor could be used as evidence in respect of the caste claim.

58. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Rule 17 (6) of the said
Caste Certificate Rules and would submit that the Scrutiny Committee
is empowered to issue validity certificate in Form 20 without enquiry
by Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny Committee upon appreciating the
statement of the applicant or evidence produced is satisfied about the
genuineness of the cast claimed. The findings recorded by the
Vigilance Cell would not be binding on the Scrutiny Committee. The
Scrutiny Committee shall record its reasons for disregarding the report
of the Vigilance Cell.

59. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Rule 17 (10) and (11)
of the said Caste Certificate Rule, 2012 and would submit that the
Scrutiny Committee is ultimately empowered to consider whether the
Vigilance Cell report should be accepted or not before validating the
caste certificate in accordance with the said provisions. He invited out
attention to the Vigilance Cell report dated 16 th April, 2014 annexed at
page 108 of Writ Petition No.3370 of 2018 and in particular paragraph
5 which deals with the certificate issued by the Khalsa College and
would submit that the Vigilance Cell has only recorded the past remand
of the proceedings by this Court to the respondent no.2 Committee that
he has not seen the original. The Principal was called to show the
original of the register to the Court. Earlier report submitted by the
Vigilance Cell was set aside by the Scrutiny Committee. The original

30

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

register was produced by the Principal, Guru Nanak Khalsa College of

Arts and Science, Mumbai before the respondent no.2 Committee
thereafter. He was called as witness to produce the said register by the
respondent no.2 Committee.

60. In support of this submission learned senior counsel invited out

attention to the findings recorded by the respondent no.2 Committee at
page 271. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on Section 139 of
the Evidence Act and would submit that since the said Principal, Guru
Nanak Khalsa College of Arts and Science, Mumbai was only called
by the respondent no.2 Committee to produce the said register and not
as a witness by the respondent no.2 to prove her case, the said
respondent no.2 Committee had rightly not permitted the petitioner to
cross-examine the said Principal, Guru Nanak Khalsa College of Arts
and Science, Mumbai. In support of this submission, learned senior
counsel invited our attention to the order passed by the respondent no.2
Committee on 23rd July, 2014 annexed at page 402 of the writ petition.

61. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that though there is

no dispute about the proposition of law that the fraud vitiates
everything, the onus was on the petitioner who had alleged fraud on
the part of the respondent no.3 to prove such allegation of alleged
fraud. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment in case of
Chaturbhuj Pande and would submit that the said judgment was
dealing with the matter under Land Acquisition Act. The evidence
could be looked into by the Court in First Appeal. In writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ Court cannot re-
appreciate the evidence. The above principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Land Acquisition matter cannot be

31

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

extended to the writ petition being heard by the Writ Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned senior counsel also
distinguished the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Juwarsingh & Ors. (supra) relied upon by Mr.Patil, learned counsel
for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.2675 of 2019 on the ground that
appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court cannot be applicable to
a Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.

62. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 distinguished the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Periyar and
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra) on the ground that the said judgment
would also not apply to the facts of this case since the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had considered the proceedings under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act and had not dealt with the powers of the Writ
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The paramount
issue involved before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that matter was as
to how to arrive at fair market value in case of Land Acquisition
matter.

63. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment delivered by

the Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajendra Shivram Thakur
(supra) on the ground that the said judgment also would not assist the
case of the petitioner. Even in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the
petitioners, the petitioners have admitted that no such argument
objecting to any of those two documents was advanced.

64. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the judgment in

case of Niraj K. More (supra) was referred to the larger bench. The

32

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

said judgment was reversed on the issue of lack of territorial

jurisdiction and not as sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel
for the petitioners. In this case, no issue of territorial jurisdiction has
been raised by any of the petitioners. The respondent no.2 Committee
thus rightly considered only these two documents which were not
disputed by the petitioners.

65. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 distinguished the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of
Maharashtra and Ors. v/s. Keshav Vishwanath Sonawne and Ors.
(supra) and invited our attention to paragraphs 4, 9, 40, 61 and 95 and
would submit that the issue involved before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the said judgment and the findings rendered in the said
judgment were totally different. On the contrary, the documents
produced by the respondent no.3 clearly showed that she was of
scheduled caste. The respondent no.2 Committee has rightly
interpreted those two documents submitted by the respondent no.3. It
was not the case of the respondent no.3 that the caste certificate should
have been granted to the respondent no.3 on the basis of Ravi Dasiya
caste.

66. Learned senior counsel distinguished the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Parsram and Anr. (supra). He
invited our attention to paragraph 2 of the said judgment and would
submit that ‘Mochi’ was not included in item 9 in part X of the
Constitution of India (SC), Order 1950 issued under Article 341 of the
Constitution of India. He relied upon paragraph 3 of the said judgment
and would submit that the finding of fact was rendered by the
Scrutiny Committee that “Mochi” and “Chamar” were the same

33

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

caste and were on the same footing. He submits that Supreme Court
did not interfere with the findings recorded by the High Court that
the Applicant was a “Chamar” and not a “Mochi”. He submits that it
was not the case of the respondent no.3 that her caste should be
included in the entry in Schedule to the Constitution of India.

67. Learned senior counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Bhaiyalal Vs. Harikishan Singh &
Ors., (1965) AIR (SC) 1557 and in particular paragraphs 2, 4 and 8
thereof and would submit that it was the duty of the Scrutiny
Committee to find out whether the respondent no.3 was “Mochi” or
“Chamar.” “Mochi” and “Chamar” were on the same footing. The
finding of the Scrutiny Committee that the respondent no.3 was
“Mochi” thus cannot be interfered with by this Court by exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if the
Scrutiny Committee would have held that the respondent no.3 was
“Chamar” by caste, even “Chamar” is included in the Schedule to
the Constitution of India as Scheduled Caste. Learned A.G.P.
supported the impugned order.

68. Mr. Korde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ
Petition No.3370 of 2020 in his rejoinder arguments submits that it
was the submission of the petitioner before the respondent no.2
committee that there were two sets of documents. There were
contradictions in the documents submitted by the respondent no.3 as
pointed out by the petitioner. The respondent no.3 did not deal with
this crucial submission made by the petitioner. The respondent no.3
had claimed to be a Sikh Chamar or Ravidasia Mochi. The
respondent no.3 did not give up one of the two castes whether Sikh

34

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Chamar or Ravidasia Mochi. The respondent no.3 had not stated

whether she was “Mochi under a separate entry in the Schedule to the
Constitution of India.

69. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the proceedings

before the Scrutiny Committee are not in the nature of the adversary
proceedings. It is the duty of the Scrutiny Committee to apply its
mind independently irrespective of the fact whether the complainant
had raised any dispute in respect of any particular document or had
admitted documents or had allegedly admitted the documents by not
disputing the documents. The Scrutiny Committee has not recorded
any independent finding that those two documents were valid and
were proved. The Scrutiny Committee has abdicated the duties
prescribed under the provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act, 2002
read with Certificate Rules, 2012.

70. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the powers of

writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are very
wide. Writ Court may even permit the parties to lead oral evidence
in appropriate cases. The fraud was staring on the face of every
documents submitted by the respondent no.3 before the respondent
no.2 Committee. By considering these two fraudulent documents, the
respondent no.2 Committee has caused gross injustice to the
petitioner. The enquiry into the caste claim made by the respondent
no.3 was not in the nature of a personal litigation between two
parties but was in the nature of enquiry in rem. Outcome of such
enquiry and validating a caste certificate affects public at large in
every sector, may be at the stage of seeking admission in any

35

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

school or college or even at the stage of applying for employment or

even while contesting an election.

71. It is submitted that if the arguments of the learned senior

counsel for the respondent no.3 are accepted, it would defeat the very
object and purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Learned senior counsel once again strongly placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu Vs.Jagnnath (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. (supra) in support of the
submission that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and such acts would
be nullity in the eyes of law. The Scrutiny Committee was bound to
apply its mind and to verify the correctness and genuineness of the
documents produced by the respondent no.3 before issuing the caste
validity certificate.

72. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that though some

of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner were under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, the principles laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in those judgments would also apply in case
of caste scrutiny claims.

73. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that both these

documents which were relied upon by the respondent no.3 and
accepted by the respondent no.2 Committee were clearly case of
inherent probability. The respondent no.3 had not stated as to how
and when the respondent no.3 came in the custody of the alleged
tenancy documents. It was not a personal fight between the
petitioner and the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.2 who was
empowered to consider the caste claim. The respondent no.3 herself

36

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

has filed a counter petition bearing (L) No.9426 of 2020 impugning

part of the order passed by the respondent no.2 committee. The
respondent no.3 deliberately did not make any submission in the
counter petition filed by her.

74. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the judgment

of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
and Ors. Vs. Keshao Vishwanath Sonone & Ors.(supra) relied
upon by the petitioner is directly relevant as to how to interpret the
entry in the Schedule to the Constitution of India. Learned senior
counsel distinguished the judgment in the case of Bhaiyalal (Supra)
and would submit that when the respondent no.3 herself had made an
application for caste “Mochi,” she cannot be allowed to now say that
the said application was irrelevant. She submits that Chamar and
Mochi are not synonymous. Mochi and Chamar are different identities.

75. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon paragraph
4 of the judgment in the case of Parsram Vs. Shivchand (supra) and
would submit that now we have separate statute on the caste
certificate in the State of Maharashtra.

76. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that under the

provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act, 2000, caste scrutiny
committee has a Suo Moto power to cancel and confiscate the caste
validity certificate if any fraud is committed upon the Caste Scrutiny
Committee by the applicant. He submits that the procedure prescribed
under the said Caste Certificate Act read with Rules has not at all been
followed by the respondent no.2 committee while validating the caste
certificate submitted by the respondent no.3.

37

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

77. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition
No.2675 of 2019 submits that in case of Niraj Kamalakar More Vs.
Schedules Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad
(supra), this Court had decided the territorial jurisdictional issue
which issue only was reversed by the Full Bench of this Court in case
of Vasant Pandurang Narvade Vs. Suhas (supra). The said
judgment in case of Vasant Pandurang Narvade Vs. Suhas (supra)
was delivered on 27th July 2001. The Caste Certificate Act, 2000 came
into effect on 17th October 2001. Prior to enactment of the said Caste
Certificate Act, 2000, guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Madhuri Patil (supra) were applicable.

78. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment in
case of Vasant Pandurang Narvade Vs. Suhas (supra) is not
applicable. Vigilance Committee found all the documents submitted
by the respondent no.3 as false and fraudulent. The respondent no.3
gave up those documents. School Leaving Certificate of the father of
the respondent no.3 was also found false. He invited our attention to
Rule 17 (2) of the Caste Certificate Rules, 2012 and would submit that
since the original School Leaving Certificate was not produced, the
respondent no.2 committee ought to have drawn adverse inference
against the respondent no.3.

79. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned senior counsel for the respondent

no.3 submits that the litigation between the parties was an adversarial
litigation and thus objection not having been raised before the
respondent no.2 committee in support of those two documents cannot
be allowed to be raised at this stage.

38

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

REASONS AND CONCLUSION :

80. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have
given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the
parties. Before we deal with the submissions made by the parties
through their respective counsel, we will summarize the relevant
provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and the said Caste
Certificate Rules, 2012.

81. Section 2 (a) of the said Caste Certificate Act defines “Caste
Certificate”. Section 2(b) defines “Competent Authority”. Section 2(j)
defines “Scheduled Castes” and “Scheduled Tribes” which shall have
meanings respectively assigned to them in clause (24) and (25) of
Article 366 of the Constitution of India. Section 2(k) defines “Scrutiny
Committee”. Under section 3 of the said Caste Certificate Act any
person who seeks to claim benefit of any reservation provided to
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category are required to produce caste certificate in order to claim
such benefit availed in any public employment or for admission into
any educational institution, or any other benefit under any special
provisions made under clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution of
India or for the purpose of contesting for elective post in any local
authority or in the Co-operative Societies; or for purchase or transfer of
land from a tribal land-holder or any other purposes specified by the
Government, shall apply in such form and in such manner as may be
prescribed, to the Competent Authority for the issue of a Caste
Certificate.

39

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

82. Under section 4 of the said Caste Certificate Act, the Competent
Authority is empowered to issue caste certificate on receipt of the
application under section 3 only after satisfying itself about the
genuineness of the claim and following the procedure as prescribed
within such time limit and in such form as may be prescribed or reject
the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. Under section 6 of
the said Caste Certificate Act, the Government is empowered to
constitute one or more Scrutiny Committees for verification of Caste
Certificates issued by the Competent Authorities under section 4(1)
specifying in the said notification the functions and the area of
jurisdiction of each of such Scrutiny Committee or Committees.

83. The person who seeks to avail off such benefit and seeks to
obtain caste certificate has to make an application well in time and in
such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, to the concerned
Scrutiny Committee about the verification of such caste certificate and
for issuance of the caste validity certificate. The Scrutiny Committee
has to follow such procedure for verification of caste certificate and
adhere to the time limit for verification and grant of validity certificate
as prescribed.

84. Under section 7 of the said Caste Certificate Act, the Scrutiny
Committee may suo moto or otherwise call for the record and enquire
into the correctness of any caste validity certificate and if it is of the
opinion that certificate was obtained fraudulently, it shall by an order
cancel and confiscate the certificate by following such procedure as
prescribed, after complying with principle of natural justice. Such
order passed by the Scrutiny Committee thereby confiscating or
cancelling false certificate thereby is final and shall not be challenged

40

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

before any authority or Court except High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

85. Section 8 of the said Act cast burden of proof upon the applicant
who claims that he belongs to scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, De-
notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward
Classes or Special Backward Category before the Competent Authority
or Scrutiny Committee or the Appellate Authority or at any Tribunal of
often found under the said Caste Certificate Act. Under section 9 of the
said Caste Certificate Act the Competent Authority, Appellate
Authority and the Scrutiny Committee have powers of the Civil Court
while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 while
holding an enquiry under the said Act.

86. Under section 10 of the said Caste Certificate Act any person,
who has secured the benefits on the basis of the false caste certificate,
on cancellation of such false caste certificate, is liable to be debarred
from the concerned educational institution or as the case may be,
discharged from the said employment forthwith and any other benefits
enjoyed or derived by virtue of such admission or appointment by such
person as aforesaid shall be withdrawn forthwith. He is also liable to
various consequences prescribed under the said provision. Under
section 11 of the said Caste Certificate Act, such person who obtains
false caste certificate is also liable to be punished as prescribed therein.

87. Under Rule 2(e) of the said Caste Certificate Rules, “deemed
date” is defined which means 10th August, 1950 i.e. the date of
Presidential Orders for Scheduled Castes, 21st November, 1961 for De-
Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis) and Nomadic Tribe and 13 th October,

41

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

1967 for other backward classes and special backward categories. For
the purpose of this case, deemed date is 10th August, 1950. Under
Rule 3, the Competent Authority is empowered to issue a caste
certificate to the applicant who is permanent resident of the concerned
area on the deemed date for which the Competent Authority is
designated or appointed by the Government, by publishing a
notification in the Official Gazette. It is also provided that in case of
the applicant who is born after the deemed date, the place of ordinary
residence for the purpose of issuance of caste certificate shall be
placed of permanent residence of his father or grandfather or great
grandfather.

88. Rule 4 provides for procedure for obtaining caste certificate

from the Competent Authority by submitting an application in Form-1
accompanied by attested copies of various documents and also to
produce the originals thereof on demand by the Competent Authority.
In this case admittedly the respondent no.3 who has been granted caste
validity certificate was not born in the State of Maharashtra on or
before the deemed date. We will deal with the documents produced by
the petitioners and the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.2
Committee in the later part of this judgment.

89. Rule 4 was substituted in the month of November, 2017. It is

provided that validity certificate if any of father in blood relation or
real uncle or any other relative of the applicant in blood relation from
paternal side is granted by the Scrutiny Committee, the Competent
Authority will issue caste certificate without asking for any other
documents of proof by considering that validity certificate is an
important evidence. In this case, the respondent no.3 did not produce

42

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

any caste validity certificate of any person prescribed in Rule 4 which

was alleged to be in existence, if any, on the date of such application
made by her.

90. Rule 5 of the said Caste Certificate Rules provides for the
procedure to be followed by the Competent Authority for issuance of
the caste certificate or rejection of a caste certificate. It is provided that
the Competent Authority may issue caste certificate to the applicant
who himself or whose father or grandfather or great grandfather was
ordinarily residing within the area of territorial jurisdiction of that
Competent Authority on the deemed date. In case the applicant or his
father or great grandfather or relative was not ordinarily resident of any
place within the area of jurisdiction of that Competent Authority,
temporary residence of the applicant for the purpose of service,
employment, education or confinement in jail etc. within such area
shall not confer jurisdiction on that Competent Authority to issue caste
certificate.

91. Under Rule 5(6), the Competent Authority is required to verify

the documents with original documents and after satisfying about the
correctness of the information, documents and evidence furnished by
the application, he shall issue the caste certificate to the applicants
belonging to the Scheduled Caste in Form – 6 and to other backward
categories in various other forms within 45 days from the date of
receipt of duly completed application provided that if the validity
certificate of father in blood relation or real uncle or any other relative
of the applicant in blood relation from paternal side granted by the
Scrutiny Committee has been submitted by the applicant, the
Competent Authority shall issue caste certificate without asking for

43

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

any other documents or proof by considering that validity certificate is

an important evidence.

92. Rule 8 of the Caste Certificate Rules provides for duties of the
Competent Authority while issuing caste certificate. Rule 12 provides
for constitution of Vigilance Cell to assist the Scrutiny Committee in
conducting any field enquiry under Rule 17 consisting of various
persons for conducting domestic enquiry and verification of
authenticity of the documents for various purposes. Such Vigilance
Cell has to work under the supervision and control of the Scrutiny
Committee. Rule 13 provides for submission of report by such
Vigilance Cell upon carrying out investigation to do various acts
including by visiting permanent place of the residence and conducting
domestic enquiry to collect information, record submission by
personally visiting the office of the Committee Authority or revenue or
school or several offices.

93. In the Rule 13 of Caste Certificate Rules however, it is made

clear that the Vigilance Cell shall not record concluding remark or
opinion since the Vigilance Cell enquiry is meant for internal
assistance to the Scrutiny Committee and adjudication of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Castes converts to Buddhism, De-
notified tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other backward
classes or special backward category status is exclusive domain of the
Scrutiny Committee. It is provided in the said Rule that the findings
recorded and the opinion expressed, if any, by the Vigilance Cell shall
not be binding on the Scrutiny Committee nor could be used as
evidence, in support of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Castes

44

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

converts to Buddhism, De-notified tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic

Tribes, other backward classes or special backward category claim.

94. Rule 16 provides for the information and documents to be

supplied by the applicant before the Competent Authority. Rule 17(6)
provides that if the Scrutiny Committee, upon appreciating the
statement of the applicant or the the claimant submitted in the form of
affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as other evidence and documents
furnished along with any application or proposal is satisfied, about the
genuineness of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Castes converts to
Buddhism, De-notified tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, other
backward classes or special backward category claim, the Scrutiny
Committee shall forthwith issue validity certificate in Form-20 without
enquiry of the Vigilance Cell.

95. Rule 17(7) provides that if the Scrutiny Committee is of the

opinion that the documents produced by the applicant did not satisfy
or conclusively prove the caste claim of such applicant, the Scrutiny
Committee by mentioning the same in the Roznama, shall refer such
case to the Vigilance Cell for carrying out suitable enquiry as is
deemed fit by the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee shall
render its reasons for discarding the report of the Vigilance Cell.

96. Under Rule 17(11)(iii), the Scrutiny Committee is required to

offer an opportunity of hearing and shall on being satisfied regarding
genuineness of the caste claim, decide the matter finally, upon
appreciation of evidence by its reasoned decision and forward the same
to the concerned authorities within 30 days. Under 17(12), it is

45

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

incumbent on the applicant to disclose all true and correct information

including the disclosure of adverse entries or material, failing which it
shall be lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw adverse inference.
If the Scrutiny Committee finds and concludes that the report of the
Vigilance Cell is false or unrealistic shall record the reasons in decision
and direct appropriate action as contemplated under section 14 read
with sections 11 and 12 of the said Caste Certificate Act and also to
recommend the departmental enquiry against such Vigilance Office.
Under Rule 19, it is provided that the complaint can be made by any
person, that a person to whom the caste certificate has been issued, is
not belonging to the case of tribe mentioned in the certificate. Such
complaint has to be enquired into by the concerned Scrutiny
Committee. Such Scrutiny Committee has to record its decision on
receipt of such complaint after following the procedure prescribed
therein.

97. In this matter, the respondent no.3 submitted an application for

obtaining the caste certificate on 26th August, 2013 as belonging to
Mochi” and submitted various documents. The respondent no.3 was
granted a caste certificate by the office of Deputy Collector, Mumbai
District Suburb on 30th August, 2013 of “Mochi”. Prior to the date of
the respondent no.3 submitting an application for issuance of caste
validity certificate, the father of the respondent no.3 had applied for
caste certificate on 2nd July, 2012 to Grampanchayat, Ganja – Dhekale,
Taluka Palghar by including his name in the Birth Register maintained
by the said Grampanchayat. He had also filed an affidavit on 10 th July,
2012 mentioning therein that his birth took place in the said village on
17th April, 1949.

46

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

98. The Executive Magistrate of Palghar passed an order on 6 th

August, 2012 to include the name of the father of the respondent no.3 -
Harbhansingh Ramsingh Kudles in the Birth Register of the said
Grampanchayat. In the said birth certificate, the date of birth of the
father of the respondent no.3 was mentioned as 17 th April, 1949. It is
the case of the petitioner that due to the public pressure and the
complaints, the said birth certificate issued in the name of the father of
the respondent no.3 was cancelled by an order dated 20 th December,
2013. The date of birth of the father of the respondent no.3 however
reflected on record was 17th April, 1954 such as in the Pan Card and
Passport. The place of his birth mentioned was Khokhara – Punjab.
One of the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent no.3 and
her father with the Mulund Police Station, Mumbai for submitting false
documents while obtaining the caste certificate. Charge sheet came to
be filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.27 at Mulund,
Mumbai on 6th August, 2015. The father of the respondent no.3
surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.27,
Mulund, Mumbai on 2nd April, 2018 and was taken into MCR and was
released on bail.

99. It is the case of the petitioners that even at that time, the father of
the respondent no.3 had submitted a copy of the Pan Card and
Passport. The place of birth was mentioned as Khokhara – Punjab and
the date of birth as 17th April, 1954 in the passport. In the affidavit in
reply dated 21st October, 2020 filed in Writ Petition No.3370 of 2018,
the respondent no.3 did not deny the averments made by the petitioners
in paragraph 5(B) of the writ petition alleging that the place of birth of
the father of the respondent no.3 was Kokhara – Punjab and the date of
birth was 17th April, 1954. She also did not dispute about the complaint

47

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

filed by one of the petitioner against the respondent no.3 and her father
before the Mulund Police Station.

100. The petitioners have also produced a copy of the Ration Card in
the name of the mother of the respondent no.3. The name of the
mother of the respondent no.3 was originally mentioned as Rajinder
Kaur and was subsequently corrected as “Rajinder Kaur Harbhansingh
Kudles - Mochi on 14th February, 2013. Mr.C.M. Korde, learned
senior counsel for the petitioner is right in his contention that the caste
is not required to be mentioned in the Ration Card under any of the
provisions of law. The said alleged amendment in the Ration Card was
made obviously with a view to fabricate the record and to create
evidence to confer the benefit ultimately to the respondent no3. The
Ration Officer subsequently by a letter dated 18th December, 2013
informed that the Ration office has included only the name by the
head of the office and had not included the caste “Mochi on the Ration
Card.

101. It appears that the father of the respondent no.3 thereafter

applied to the Tahsildar, Palghar, District Thane for getting the caste
certificate and submitted his School Leaving Certificate No.11016 of
Bombay Municipal Corporation Poisar Hindi School, Borivli
mentioning his caste as “Mochi” and place of birth as Thane. He also
submitted his father’s caste certificate which was issued by the S.D.O.
Ropar, Punjab dated 14th November, 1988 and the affidavit. The said
application, however was rejected on the ground that the caste
certificate of the grandfather of the respondent no.3 was issued from
State of Punjab.

48

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

102. The father of the respondent no.3 applied for the caste
certificate once again before the Deputy Collector, Mumbai on 25 th
July, 2013 and submitted another School Leaving Certificate No.11166
issued by Bombay Municipal Corporation Poisar Hindi School,
Borivli and a copy of the Ration Card in which his name was entered
with the caste “Mochi”. The said School Leaving Certificate No.11166
was different than the earlier School Leaving Certificate No.11046.
The office of the Deputy Collector, Mumbai admittedly by his order
dated 30th July, 2013 set aside the caste certificate of “Mochi” in
favour of the father of the respondent no.3. Two different school
leaving certificates bearing two different numbers before two different
authorities were submitted by the father of the respondent no.3. The
father of the respondent no.3 thereafter applied for obtaining caste
certificate on 26th August, 2013 as belonging to “Mochi”. Respondent
no.3 along with her application also relied upon the same Ration Card
where the word “Mochi” was not corrected by the Ration Officer.

103. The respondent no.3 also relied upon the caste certificate and
school leaving certificate of her father. After making enquiry, it was
found that the said entry “Mochi” was made by separate application on
7th August, 2013 by the husband of the respondent no.3, who was a
member of Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra. The
caste “Mochi” was added in the school leaving certificate only in the
month of August, 2013. The management of the Kartika High School,
Kurla who had issued school leaving certificate in the name of the
respondent no.3 vide their letter dated 31st January, 2014 recorded that
the husband of the respondent no.3 had made an application dated 7th
August, 2013 to the said school thereby alleging that he knew that the
respondent no.3 and her brother were belonging to “Mochi” caste and

49

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

had accordingly requested to add the caste “Mochi” in the certificate of

the respondent no.3 and merely on his request the said caste was added
in the school record of Kartika High School, Kurla.

104. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Kartika High School,
Kurla also furnished a copy of the application for admission which
was submitted by the respondent no.3 dated 23rd April, 1991. Even in
the said application for admission, the caste / sub-caste and religion of
the respondent no.3 was mentioned as Shikh in the original birth
certificate bearing No.66182 which was issued in Form-9 in favour of
the respondent no.3 and did not mention the caste “Mochi”. A perusal
of record further indicates that the names of the respondent no.3 and
her mother were different in the original certificate issued by the
Bombay Municipal Corporation and the certificate which was created
at the instance of the respondent no.3. The record further indicates that
two surname Kundles” and “caste Mochi” are included in the register
maintained by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on 3rd January, 2013
by the Medical Officer of Birth N/Ward. The Scrutiny Committee
passed an order on 11th Separate, 2013 for issuance of caste validity
certificate in favour of the respondent no.3. The Scrutiny Committee
however mentioned that the file was put up before the members of the
Committee in the meeting held on 25th September, 2013 though the
order was already passed on 11th September, 2013.

105. One of the petitioner and Mr.Jayant Vanjari thereafter filed the
complaints before the respondent no.2 with a request to cancel the
validity certificate issued in favour of the respondent no.3 on various
grounds. The Vigilance Cell submitted a report on 12 th February, 2014
to the respondent no.2 Committee and informed that the school leaving

50

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

certificate submitted by the respondent no.3 was forged and

fabricated. The Scrutiny Committee thereafter issued a show cause
notice upon the respondent no.3 as to why the caste validity certificate
shall not be cancelled on the ground that the same was obtained by
producing false and fabricated documents.

106. A perusal of the record further indicates that in response to the

said show cause notice, the respondent no.3 submitted additional
documents including the alleged bonafide certificate of her grandfather
Ramsingh Kudles allegedly issued by Khalsa College, Mumbai on 11 th
February, 2014, Pedigree certificate in Urdu along with English
translation issued by the Tahsildar, Ropar, Punjab wherein the caste
was mentioned “Ravidasiya Mochi” and a letter addressed to Khalsa
College, Mumbai by the brother of the respondent no.3 for obtaining
bonafide certificate.

107. On 10th March, 2014, the Vigilance Cell submitted its report to
the respondent no.2 Committee. In the said report it was stated that the
authorities of the Khalsa College, Mumbai did not show any original
document or register to the Vigilance Cell but handed over a photocopy
of the concerned pages of the register. The Vigilance Cell was of the
opinion that there was difference in the handwriting and the ink
between two entries made immediately on the same date i.e. 16th
November, 1946. A perusal of the record indicates that at the behest of
the respondent no.3, the Scrutiny Committee replaced the said
Vigilance Cell Officer by appointing another officer in his place. The
Vigilance Cell submitted another report on 16th April, 2014 after
conducting an enquiry in respect of those additional documents
submitted by the respondent no.3 and opined that the entry “Mochi”

51

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

was made in the school leaving certificate issued by the Kartika High
School, Kurla later on in the year 2013. The school leaving certificate
in the name of the father of the respondent no.3 which was relied upon
by the respondent no.3 also was not even in existence at the relevant
time. The said report further stated that the authorities of Khalsa
College, Mumbai did not show the original register to the Vigilance
Cell.

108. Insofar as Pedigree certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ropar,

Punjab and relied upon by the respondent no.3 is concerned, the
Vigilance Cell officer opined that when the enquiry was made from
some of the persons at the native place of the respondent no.3 of her
forefather, the Vigilance Cell was informed that the caste of the
respondent no.3 was “Ravidasiya Mochi”. The said caste “Ravidasiya
Mochi” is not included in the list of Scheduled Caste declaration under
Article 341 of the Constitution of India.

109. One of the petitioner impugned the caste validity certificate

dated 25th September, 2013 issued in favour of the respondent no.3 by
the respondent no.2 Committee by filing a Writ Petition No.325 of
2015. By an order dated 28th June, 2017 after hearing the parties
through their respective counsel, a Division Bench of this Court
recorded that the issue regarding locus cannot be restricted in the
matter, regarding a status of caste and tribe. This Court held that if a
candidate claims a status of a particular reserved category though he or
she is not entitled to that, a citizen would be entitled to knock the door
of the Court and seek redressal. This court rejected the issue of locus
raised by the respondent in the petition. In paragraph 7 of the said
order, this Court observed that the Court failed to understand as to

52

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

how, in the present case, the Scrutiny Committee has been

magnanimous enough to accept the contention of the respondent no.3
that she belongs to scheduled caste, as being ipse dixit, without there
being a single validity in favour of her closed relatives.

110. This Court held that the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny
Committee in granting the validity certificate in favour of the
respondent no.3, without undertaking the Vigilance Cell enquiry, is
completely extraordinary. This Court held that since the caste validity
certificate granted to the respondent no.3 has been granted without
following the procedure as prescribed by law i.e. without calling the
report of the Vigilance Cell, the same is not sustainable in law and
accordingly quashed and set aside the said order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee. This Court directed the Scrutiny Committee to give an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.3
to place all the relevant documents in support of their claims and to
take a decision in accordance with law. This Court also granted an
opportunity to the parties to submit their objection to the Vigilance Cell
enquiry, if they so desired. This Court further directed that if the
Scrutiny Committee finds that if any Vigilance Cell enquiry is required
to be conducted, the same shall be done. This Court allowed the said
writ petition.

111. Admittedly in this case, no caste validity certificate in favour of

the father of the respondent no.3 or any of her relatives was produced
before the Scrutiny Committee. This Court while setting aside the
earlier caste validity certificate issued in favour of the respondent no.3
had considered as one of the ground for setting aside the earlier caste
validity certificate when the Scrutiny Committee had hurriedly issued

53

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

the said caste validity certificate in favour of the respondent no.3. In

the report dated 10th March, 2014 submitted by the Vigilance Cell to
the Scrutiny Committee, it was recorded that the Principal, Khalsa
College, Mumbai when was approached refused to show the General
Register of the college and informed that the Principal would submit a
report to the Caste Scrutiny Committee. Though the Principal of
Khalsa College forwarded a letter through Speed Post i.e. to the
respondent no.2 - Scrutiny Committee along with certified photocopy
of the college admission general register No.486 dated 16th November,
1946 of Ramsingh Kudles, the said report did not provide the
information as sought by the Vigilance Cell. On page 333, at entry
no.486 the name of Ramsingh Budhiya appeared.

112. Entry Nos.485 and 486 had been made on 16 th November, 1946.
There was overwriting in the entry no.485. Entry nos.485 and 486
though were made on the same day i.e. 16 th November, 1946, there was
difference in the handwriting and ink. The Vigilance Cell had
therefore, visited again on 25th February, 2014 to the Principal, Khalsa
College, Mumbai and submitted a request letter to allow inspection of
the said General Register and to take photocopy in digital camera, the
Principal of Khalsa College, Mumbai did not allow to do so. The
Vigilance Cell was again called for 3-4 days. The Vigilance Cell again
met the Principal, Mr.Ajitsingh Khalsa on 7th March, 2014 and was
again denied to see entry no.486 of 16 th November, 1946 in the said
admission register.

113. Insofar as the documents of family tree relied upon by the

respondent n o.3 is concerned, the Vigilance Cell Officer opined that
the family tree issued by the Tahsildar, Ropar, District Ambala is

54

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

neither issued by Tahsildar, nor any stamp or signature of the Tahsildar,

Ropar, District Ambala was found on the said document.

114. On 16th April, 2014, the Vigilance Cell Officer submitted a report
before the respondent no.2 Committee after verification of various
documents. In the said report, the Vigilance Cell Officer opined about
the documents submitted by the respondent no.3 before the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District who had issued Caste
Certificate dated 30th August, 2013 in favour of the respondent no.3.
Insofar as the school leaving certificate submitted by the respondent
no.3 which was issued by Kartika High School is concerned, the
Vigilance Cell Officer met the Headmaster and Secretary of the
Institute. She informed that the respondent no.3 had studied in the
school from 23rd April, 1991 to June 1994 in 1st Standard to 4th
Standard. The original school leaving certificate was issued on 28 th
April, 1995 to her.

115. On 23rd August, 2013, she had submitted an application to the

school requesting to give her duplicate school leaving certificate
mentioning caste ‘Mochi’. Headmistress Mrs.Nair informed the Kurla
Police Station that due to water logging in the school on 26th July, 2005
the school record was damaged. The documents in respect of the claim
of the caste of the respondent no.3 were taken from her. It is thus clear
that the caste ‘Mochi’ was added much later i.e. after more than 18
years of issuance of the original school leaving certificate on the
request made by the respondent no.3 for mentioning the caste Mochi
on the duplicate school leaving certificate.

55

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

116. The Vigilance Cell Officer made comments on the school

leaving certificate of father of the respondent no.3 bearing certificate
no. 11166 issued by the Municipal Primary School, Poisar, S. V. Road,
Borivali showing the date of birth as 11th April, 1949, date of entry in
the school on 18th June, 1954 and date of leaving the school as 25th
April, 1958. The Vigilance Cell Officer inspected the general register
of the school and found that the first student of the said Hindi School
i.e. Fatimadevi Muhammad Hussain had taken admission on 13 th
October, 1964. The name on the entry no. 281 which was relied upon
by the father of the respondent no.3 was of some of other candidate.
The name of father of the respondent no.3 did not appear against entry
no. 281. First school leaving certificate was given to Sanjay S.
Panchal on 16th December, 1964. It is thus clear that the said school
leaving certificate produced by the father of the respondent no.3 was
also fraudulent.

117. The Vigilance Cell Officer stated that the principal of the college
issued the certified copy of the bonafide certificate and the general
register of the student. The Vigilance Cell Officer stated that the letter
dated 8th February, 2014 has not been issued by the Head Master of
Municipal Primary School, Poisar, Borivali (West). The Head Master
denied the hand writing and signature on the letter dated 1 st April,
2014.

118. Insofar as the alleged rent agreement of the grand-father of the

respondent no.3 dated 28th July, 1932 stating the address ‘22, 2nd
Fofalwadi, Bhuleshwar is concerned, the Vigilance Cell Officer stated
that the enquiry in respect of the said document was conducted in the
Bhuleshwar area but due to insufficient address and the name of the

56

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

building, nobody of that area could inform about the said address. In
the said report, Vigilance Cell Officer opined that the school leaving
certificate no. 11166 showing caste Mochi by Municipal Primary
School, Poisar, Borivali in favour of the father of the respondent no.3
was not issued by the said school. The verification of the rent
agreement dated 28th July, 1932 could not be done as the name and
address were insufficient.

119. The Vigilance Cell Officer in his report dated 16 th April, 2014 to
the respondent no.2 Committee stated that on 26th March, 2014, the
Vigilance Cell Officer had visited the Khalsa College where the
Principal informed that report was ready with one Shri Sundaram and
can be collected from him. The Vigilance Cell Officer requested to
show the original register to verify the entry but was denied. In the
report dated 26th September, 2017, the Vigilance Cell Officer made
various comments in respect of the documents from the office of
Tehsildar, village Khokhar, Post Office Berhampur, Punjab relied upon
by the respondent no.3.

120. In the report dated 9th October, 2017 submitted by the Police
Vigilance Cell it was stated that he had visited the village Khokhar,
Post Office Berhampur, Punjab to enquire about the evidencial
documents submitted by the respondent no.3. The Sarpanch of the
village Mr.Avtar Singh Indersingh told that the certificate in Punjabi
and English were not issued by him and the signatures were not of him.
The Sarpanch of the village informed the Vigilance Cell Officer that
the population of the village was more than 1000 and in his village
most of the persons belong to Labhana caste and they do agriculturing
for their livelihood. In his village no family of Mochi caste was living

57

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

and he did not know about Mochi community. He told that whether
the father of the respondent no.3 can be a resident of his village, he
cannot comment about his caste. A perusal of the Vigilance Cell report
on record would clearly indicate that no clean chit was given to the
respondent no.3 in respect of any of the documents submitted by her in
support of her caste claim.

121. We shall now deal with some of the findings recorded by the
respondent no.2 Committee in respect of the documents relied upon by
both the parties before the respondent no.2 Committee in the impugned
order in favour of the respondent no.3. At page 333 of the Writ
Petition No. 3370 of 2018 while dealing with the school leaving
certificate produced by the respondent no.3 issued by Kartika High
School and Junior College, respondent no.2 Committee held that the
change in the said document on 23rd August, 2014, the word i.e.
‘Mochi’ could not be taken as original record and therefore was not
admissible as evidence of caste. The respondent no.2 Committee took
into consideration the Vigilance Cell report oral and written arguments
of both the parties while recording the said finding.

122. Insofar as the school leaving certificate of the father of the

respondent no.3 which was relied upon by her, the respondent no.2
Committee held that since both the documents were not issued by the
concerned school, the same were not admissible as evidence for caste
claim. Insofar as pedigree of the family of the respondent no.3 and her
forefathers at the village Khokhar, Tal. Ropar, Dist. Ambala, the
respondent no.2 Committee was of the view that the Committee cannot
come to the conclusion to take the said document as admissible in

58

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

evidence in support of the caste claim of the respondent no.3 and

rejected the said document.

123. In respect of the pedigree in the year 1894-95 at village Khokar,

Tal. Ropar, Dist. Ambala the respondent no.2 Committee held that the
said document was not taken as admissible. In respect of the pedigree
in the year 1920-21 at village Khokar, Tal. Ropar, Dist. Ambala is
concerned, it is held by the respondent no.2 Committee that the said
document is a pedigree table wherein family pedigrees of the Hajjam
Saggu, Jat Lohar, Ravidasia Mochi castes have been mentioned. The
names of people in the Ravidasia Mochi community have been
mentioned as Chachandu, Harichand, Mikhkhyi, Budhya, Asaram,
Ralta. The respondent no.2 Committee however held that the pedigree
is not a complete form and therefore Committee could not come to the
conclusion to take the said document admissible as evidence for the
caste claim made by the respondent no.3.

124. Similar reasons were recorded in respect of pedigree 1936-37

and 1940-41 submitted by the respondent no.3 in support of her claim
and by the respondent no.2 and rejected those documents also. At page
343 of the Writ Petition (internal page 62 of the impugned order) the
respondent no.2 Committee recorded the submissions made by the
petitioners that the respondent no.3 had committed a fraud. The
petitioners had also relied upon 10 documents. The documents relied
upon by the petitioners were however rejected without any proper
enquiry.

125. The respondent no.2 Committee relied upon (i) bonafide

certificate dated 11th February, 2014 issued by Principal, Gurunanak

59

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Mumbai and (ii)

Alleged rent agreement for the year 1932 in the name of the Budhia
Roda i.e. the great grand-father of the respondent no.3 and the affidavit
of Mrs.Radhadevi Adukiya while allowing the caste claim of the
respondent no.3. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Dhakephalkar,
learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.3 that though the
respondent no.2 has relied upon several documents in support of her
caste claim, the respondent no.2 Committee has relied upon only these
two documents which were not objected by the petitioners before the
respondent no.2 Committee. It is urged by the learned Senior Counsel
that no reliance on the other documents which were not accepted in
evidence by the respondent no.2 Committee though were relied upon
by the respondent no.3 in support of her claim cannot be referred to or
relied upon by the petitioners in support of their case.

126. We shall now deal with the part of the order dealing with these
documents which are accepted by the respondent no.2 Committee in
allowing the caste claim of the respondent no.3. Insofar as the
bonafide certificate dated 11th February, 2014 alleged to have been
issued by the Principal of Gurunanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science
and Commerce, Mumbai to show that the great grand-father of the
respondent no.3, Shri Ramsingh Budhiya had taken admission in the
college in the year 1946 and having address at Mumbai and the caste
mention therein was Sikh Chamar was an authentic document or not is
concerned, it is not in dispute that the said document was relied upon
by the respondent no.3 much later. The Vigilance Cell Officer had
made enquiry repeatedly with the Principal of the said College and had
sought inspection of the original register.

60

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

127. In various reports submitted by the Vigilance Cell Officer, it was

brought on record that the Principal of the said college had refused to
give inspection of the original register though was under an obligation
to produce the original register during the course of conducting enquiry
by the Vigilance Cell Officer. The respondent no.3 did not controvert
the said reports submitted by the Vigilance Cell raising suspicion on
the photo copy of the said register before the respondent no.2
Committee. It was opined by the Vigilance Cell Officer that ink and
the signature of two entries on the said register were different though
were alleged to have been entered on the same day. At page 335 of the
writ petition, the respondent no.2 Committee referred to the visit of the
Vigilance Squad to verify the bonafide certificate and stating that the
original register was not shown to the Vigilance Squad by the said
college. The petitioners had raised doubt about the copy of the said
register produced by the Principal of the said Khalsa college and had
strongly relied upon the said Vigilance report raising doubt about the
authenticity of the entries regarding the name of the great grand-father
of the respondent no.3 and the caste in the said register.

128. The Vice-Principal of the said college appears to have remained

present before the respondent no.2 Committee. The petitioners had
requested the respondent no.2 Committee to permit the petitioners to
cross-examine the Vice-Principal of the said college. The said request
on the part of the petitioners was however rejected by the respondent
no.2 Committee on the ground that the Vice-Principal was not called as
a witness for recording his evidence and thus the petitioners could not
have been permitted to cross-examine the said Vice-Principal. A
perusal of the record indicates that though in several reports submitted
by the Vigilance Cell clearly placing on record that the original copy of

61

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

the said register was not shown and there was a different in the ink and
the handwriting of last two entries in the said register, no cognizance
had been taken by the respondent no.2 Committee in the impugned
order at all.

129. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 has tenaciously
argued that none of the petitioners had assailed the validity of the
bonafide certificate of the grandfather of the respondent no.3 before
the Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, this Court while exercising writ
jurisdiction cannot go into merits or demerits in the said document. It
would be apt and apposite to note here that the said document was
duly taken care of and considered by the Scrutiny Committee and the
said document very well weighed in its mind while validating the
Caste Certificate issued in favour of respondent no.3.

130. There are two inherent infirmities in this idle submission of

learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3. To find out how and
in what manner we straightway go to the observations and findings of
Scrutiny Committee in respect of bonafide certificate of the
grandfather of the respondent no.3.

131. It is apparent from the impugned order that pursuant to the

request made by the counsel for complainant, the Scrutiny Committee
ordered to produce the original register of the Guru Nanak Khalsa
College of Arts, Science and Commerce, Mumbai in its hearing on 16 th
July, 2014 and accordingly the same was allegedly produced by the
Vice Principal, namely, Shri. L. N. D’Souza, representative of the
Principal of said college.

62

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

132. We further note that Shri. L. N. D’Souza was examined by the

Scrutiny Committee and confronted with the entry No. 486 dated 16 th
November, 1946 pertaining to grandfather of the respondent no.3. He
was asked whether the said entry was recorded in the same year i.e.
1946 or thereafter to which he expressed ignorance.

133. What is prominently pertinent here is that the original register

was summoned at the request of counsel for the complainant. It is not
the case that Scrutiny Committee on its own wanted to examine the
witness vis-a-vis bonafide certificate of the grandfather of the
respondent no.3 as the Vigilance Cell had duly informed the Scrutiny
Committee that during its visit to the said college for the purpose of
an enquiry, said college had refused to show original register. We also
note with dismay that inspection of original register was not given to
the complainant as we do not find anything in the impugned order to
that effect. This being so, there was no occasion or opportunity to
complainant to raise any objection, if any, in respect of entry No. 486.

134. What prompted the Scrutiny Committee to record examination-

in-chief of the said representative is not made clear in the impugned
order. Probably answer lies in the questions, as noted above, posed to
said representative. The nature of questions asked by Scrutiny
Committee at the first instance itself goes to suggests and demonstrate
that the Scrutiny Committee was harbouring some doubt or suspicion
as to the entry No.486 and that is why the questions find their way on
to record. There is nothing on the record to show that any further

63

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

enquiry was conducted by the Scrutiny Committee to verify the

correctness of the said entry, particularly in the light of answer given
by the said representative. What aghasts us is an eerie silence and
failure on the part of Scrutiny Committee to give finding(s) on the
answer so given by the said representative in response to the
questions put to him by the Scrutiny Committee itself. Abdicating its
responsibility and duty, the Scrutiny Committee chose to remain
discreet. We do not approve of the way the Scrutiny Committee
handled the said representative. This approach needs to be frowned
upon.

135. The moment Scrutiny Committee examined the said

representative, both the parties had become entitled for cross-
examination. They had right to cross-examine the said representative.
And this right was rightly exercised by the counsel for complainant,
which is apparent from the impugned order, by requesting Scrutiny
Committee to allow him to cross-examine the said representative but
his request was turned down by the Scrutiny Committee on the
ground that since the said representative had come as a presenter of
the original document of college before it, he does not become a
witness of complainant.

136. We are unable to persuade ourselves to countenance the

approach of Scrutiny Committee. This was not simplicitor the case of
production of original register. The Scrutiny Committee went a step
ahead, placed the representative in the dock and grilled him about the
entry No. 486. Here we are mindful of principle and scope of Section

64

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

139 of the Evidence Act. Section 139 of the Evidence Act provides
that a person summoned to produce a document does not become a
witness by the mere fact that he produces it, and cannot be cross-
examined unless and until he is called as a witness. The phrase “ until
he is called as a witness” means until he is summoned to depose and
is sworn. In the instant case the said representative was admittedly
sworned and replied to the queries raised by the Scrutiny Committee
thereby giving both parties a right of cross-examination. We have
already pointed out how the right of cross-examination of
complainant was defeated and frustrated by the Scrutiny Committee.
Thus, the principle of natural justice was not adhered to and rather
was thrown to the winds by the Scrutiny Committee. We cannot take
our eyes off the illegality staring at us and committed at the hands of
Scrutiny Committee.

137. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find merits in the
submission of learned senior counsel for respondent no.3 that while
exercising writ jurisdiction this Court could not go into merits and
demerits of bonafide certificate of the grandfather of respondent no.3.
This Court has to see whether the Scrutiny Committee considered the
relevant material placed before it in proper perspective or has not
applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the committee
ultimately record the finding.

138. Viewed in this light we are of the firm view that Scrutiny
Committee did its job rather sloppily and shirked the obligations
imposed on it by the provisions of the Act, if we may say so.

65

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

139. There are no good reasons to feel smug about non-assailability

of bonafide certificate of grandfather of respondent no.3. The
argument of learned senior counsel for respondent no.3 in this regard
has no merit and consequently stands rejected.

140. The respondent no.2 Committee has not even recorded any
reasons as to why the said objections/observations of the Vigilance
Cell in respect of raising serious doubt about the documents was
required to be rejected by the respondent no.2 Committee. Under Rule
18(12) of the Caste Certificate Rules it is incumbent on the applicant to
disclose all the true and correct information, including disclosure of
adverse entries or material, failing which, it shall be lawful for the
Scrutiny Committee to draw adverse inference. In this case, all the
documents relied upon by the respondent no.3 in support of her caste
claim were held inadmissible except these two documents by accepting
the objection of the Vigilance Cell and the petitioners.

141. Under Rule 18(6), the Scrutiny Committee is empowered, if

upon appreciating the statement of applicant or claimant submitted in
the form of affidavit filed in consonance with Order 18 Rule 14 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as other evidence and
documents furnished along with any applications or proposal is
satisfied, about the genuineness of the caste claim of the applicant, to
forthwith issue validity certificate without enquiring by Vigilance Cell.
The said power is coupled with duty. In this case, the respondent no.2
Committee had referred most of the documents for enquiry by
Vigilance Cell. Though respondent no.2 Committee was satisfied

66

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

prima-facie that the complaints made by the petitioners that the earlier
caste validity certificate issued by the respondent no.2 Committee was
based on the fraudulent and fabricated documents, the respondent no.2
Committee has totally ignored the objections raised and doubt raised
by the Vigilance Cell officer in various reports without recording any
reasons.

142. Under Rule 17(7) of the Caste Certificate Rules, the findings
recorded by the Vigilance Cell shall not be binding on the Scrutiny
Committee. The scrutiny comments however is obliged to record its
reasons for discarding the report of Vigilance Cell. In this case, no
such reasons are recorded for discarding the reports of Vigilance Cell
raising doubts about the authenticity of the said alleged register
showing the entry in the name of great grand-father of the respondent
no.3 as a student of Khalsa College. In our view, the respondent no.2
committee has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the Rule
17 of the Caste Certificate Rules while conducing an enquiry before
issuance of the caste validity certificate in favour of respondent no.3
and has abdicated its duties.

143. The burden of proof was on the respondent no.3 to prove that
she belonged to caste Mochi and was eligible to claim the benefits
provided to a reserved category candidate under the provisions of
Constitution of India. Though the Scrutiny Committee is not bound by
the strict rules of evidence but is still bound by the principles of
Evidence Act and also the natural justice. The principles of Evidence
Act and the natural justice applied to the proceedings before the
Scrutiny Committee while conducting an equiry into a caste claim
made by any applicant.

67

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

144. Surprisingly, the respondent no.2 committee in the impugned

order has recorded that no oral or written objections had been taken on
behalf of the complainant and therefore the said two documents were
competent evidence to prove the residence of the forefathers of the
respondent no.3 before the deemed date and the caste of the applicant
which the committee should accept as admissible. The respondent
no.2 committee did not deal with the observations made by the
Vigilance Cell that the original documents was not produced by the
Vice-Principal of the said college and also that the hand writing and the
ink of the last two entries in the said alleged register though were
allegedly made on the same day were different. A colour photo copy
of the said page of the register was also produced for perusal and
consideration of this Court.

145. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent

no.3 could not dispute the correctness of the observations made by the
Vigilance Cell office in its reports pointing out the difference in hand
writing and ink in respect of the last two entries in the said alleged
register. A perusal of the coloured photocopy of the last page of the
register would clearly indicate the difference in hand writing and the
ink used in respect of last two entries though had been allegedly
entered on the same day. A perusal of the said photo copy of the
register also indicates that the said alleged entry 486 was the last entry
in respect of the students who were admitted to first year science
course. The next page of the admission register starts with entries
relating to Arts faculty with serial no. 1. There is overwriting in the
number 485. The respondent no.2 committee thus ought to have
applied its mind independently and to find out the correctness and

68

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

authenticity of the said document when serious doubt about such

document was raised by the Vigilance Cell after conducting an enquiry.

146. In our view, since the petitioners had sought an opportunity to

cross-examine the Vice-Principal of Khalsa college who had produced
a document before the respondent no.2 committee, that itself would
indicate that the petitioners had disputed the document produced by the
Vice-Principal and relied upon by the respondent no.3 in support of her
caste claim. In these circumstances, the respondent no.2 committee
could not have accepted a doubtful and suspicious document produced
by the respondent no.3 as admissible on the ground that no objection
was raised in respect of that document by the petitioners.

147. In our view, the respondent no.2 committee has to carry out
investigation independently and to apply its mind before issuing the
caste validity certificate irrespective of whether the objections raised
by the petitioners who were the complainants or by the Vigilance Cell
were strictly proved or not. The Scrutiny Committee does not hear a
personal dispute between the complainant and the applicant and thus
could not have applied the principles of ‘deemed admission’ or
“deemed to have been proved’ while carrying out a statutory duty
while considering a caste claim so as to confer various benefits
prescribed under the Constitution of India. In our view, the nature of
enquiry required to be conducted by the Scrutiny Committee under the
provisions of the Caste Certificate Act and the Caste Certificate Rules
is an enquiry in rem and not an enquiry to decide the personal disputes
between two parties i.e. action in personan. Any such caste validity
certificate once issued by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in favour of an
applicant applies to the world at large and in rem.

69

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

148. The Supreme Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil

vs.Additional Commissioner, (1994) 6 SCC 241 has held that issuance
of caste verification certificate should not be a casual exercise and
Scrutiny Committee must take assistance of Vigilance Cell to ensure
that non-entitled person do not get benefited at the cost of the entitled
persons. It is held that the issuance of caste certificate for obtaining
employment and admission to educational institutions gave rise to vast
area of malpractice as non-entitled persons managed to obtain such
certificates for availing the benefits. No proper procedure or
legislation is provided for checks and balances in issuance of these
caste certificates. The Supreme Court accordingly in case of Madhuri
Patil v/s. Commr., Tribal Development, (1994) 6 SCC 241 issued
various directions and guidelines to be followed by the Caste Scrutiny
Committee considering an application for caste claim. Those
principals were also subsequently translated into the said Caste
Certificate Act and the Caste Certificate Rules.

149. The proceedings before the respondent no.2 committee were not
in the nature of adversarial litigation. This Court while setting aside
the earlier caste validity certificate issued by the respondent no.2
committee in the petition filed by one of these petitioners had rejected
the issue of locus raised by the respondent no.3 in filing the writ
petition. Section 19 of the said Caste Certificate Act permits
complaints to be made to the Scrutiny Committee that a person to
whom a caste certificate has been issued, is not belonging to the caste
or thereby mentioned in the certificate and for calling upon the
Scrutiny Committee to conduct an enquiry in such complaint or
allegations. The complainant in this case having made serious

70

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

allegations about the forgery and fabrication of various documents

against the respondent no.3 which allegations were supported by the
Vigilance Cell report submitted after conducting the enquiry by the
Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee could not have adopted casual
approach as adopted in this case.

150. The Scrutiny Committee has totally ignored the objections raised
by the complainant and also by the Vigilance Cell in respect of those
documents and has allowed the caste claim in favour of the respondent
no.3 though the respondent no.3 has failed to discharge her burden by
producing authentic and clear evidence. The respondent no.2
committee has failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section
5 and failed to comply with the duties under Sections 8, 9, 13, 14 and
17 read with Caste Certificate Rules. The Supreme Court in case of
Dayaram v/s. Sudhir Batham and Ors., (2012) 1 SCC 333 has held
that each Scrutiny Committee has a Vigilance Cell that acts as the
investigation wing of the committee. The core function of the Scrutiny
Committee, in verification of the caste certificates, is the investigation
carried out by its Vigilance Cell. The Scrutiny Committee is not an
adjudicating authority like a Court or Tribunal but an administrative
body which verify the facts, investigate into a specific claim of caste
status and ascertains whether the caste/tribe statues claim is correct or
not.

151. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that as there
were large number of seats or posts reserved for the schedule caste and
schedule tribe which were being taken away by bogus candidates claim
to belong to schedule caste and schedule tribe, the Supreme Court had
directed in case of Madhuri Patil (supra) the constitution of such

71

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Scrutiny Committee to provide an expeditious, effective and

efficacious remedy, in the absence of any statute or a legal framework
for proper verification of false claims regarding schedule cast/schedule
tribe status.

152. Supreme Court in case of District Collector, Satara v/s.

Mangesh and Anr. v/s. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid, (2019) 10 SCC 166
after construing various provisions of the said Caste Certificate Act and
the said Caste Certificate Rules held that issuance of caste certificates
for obtaining employment and admission to educational institutions
gave rise to vast area of malpractice as non-entitled persons managed
to obtain such certificates for availing the benefits. The Supreme
Court clearly held that the troublesome aspect is that the validity
certificates are not only valid for that election, but also for subsequent
elections. They are not only valid for educational purposes (except for
some cases so restricted), but also for all other purposes. These
validity certificates can possibly become the basis for issuance of
further certificates to their legal heirs. The Supreme Court in that
matter has quashed the caste validity certificate with a direction to
carry out exercise afresh. It is held that where the Vigilance Cell
opined otherwise and yet a caste validity certificate has been issued,
the exercise may be carried out afresh.

153. Supreme Court in case of Rajeshwar Baburao Bone v/s. State

of Maharashtra and Anr., (2015) 14 SCC 497 has held that in the
event of occurrence of fraud, the Scrutiny Committee can recall its
earlier order even in absence of specific provision enabling the
committee to exercise of powers of review. The respondent no.3 has
not disputed that the caste certificate obtained by the father of the

72

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

respondent no.3 was recalled by a competent authority for similar

reasons. Most of the documents relied upon by the father of the
respondent no.3 on the basis of which the caste certificate which was
earlier issued was recalled and cancelled were relied upon by the
respondent no.3 also in support of her caste claim. Though there were
serious allegations of fraud and fabrication made against the
respondent no.3, the respondent no.2 committee totally overlooked
such serious allegations made by the Vigilance Cell.

154. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Devidas Baburao

Hajare and Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 1987 Mh. L.J.
801 has held that there are some unscrupulous and dishonest persons in
this country who never fail to defeat these massive and far-reaching
endeavours made by a democratic nation to integrate an oppressed,
depressed and excluded population into the mainstream of national life.
They indulge in various kinds of deceitful and fraudulent methods for
obtaining bogus caste certificates on the basis of which they get
medical and engineering courses, in the reserved category thus
depriving the genuine scheduled castes and scheduled tribes students
of their fundamental right to education which was denied to them for
thousands of years.

155. This Court held that the totality of the evidence should convince
the caste certificate issuing authority that a particular applicant belongs
or does not belong to a certain caste. There cannot be hard and fast
rule for granting or rejecting the caste-claims of the applicants. The
caste certificate issuing authorities have to apply their minds to the
facts and evidence in every individual case before them. The
principles laid down by this Court in the said judgment applies to the

73

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

facts of this case. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Anita d/o
Ramrao Himgire and Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2007
(1) Mh.L.J. 797 has held that it cannot be gainsaid that the caste claim
is to be proved by unimpeachable material. In this case, the said
alleged bonafide certificate did not support the caste claim made by the
respondent no.3.

156. Supreme Court in case of Punit Rai v/s. Dinesh Chaudhary,

(2003) 8 SCC 204 has held that the question as to whether a person
belongs to a particular caste or not has to be determined by a statutory
authorities specified therefor. It is further held that a person infact not
belonging to a scheduled caste, if claims himself to be a member
thereof by procuring a bogus caste certificate, would be committing
fraud on the Constitution. No Court of law encourage commission of
such fraud. In our view, the principles of laid down in case of Punit
Rai (supra) applies to the facts of this case. Though, the respondent
no.3 claims to have a big family, the respondent no.3 failed to produce
any caste validity certificate in favour of any member of her family or
relative certifying caste as Mochi since 1950 in support of her caste
claim. The documents annexed by the respondent no.3 in support of
her caste claim which were relied upon by the father of the respondent
no.3 in support of his caste claim were found fraudulent. The father of
the respondent no.3 did not challenge the said order passed by the
competent authority withdrawing his caste certificate on such ground.

157. In our view, the finding of the respondent no.2 committee that
alleged bonafide certificate dated 11th February, 2014 and the general
register showing the entry at Sr. No. 486 in the name of the great
grand-father of the respondent no.3 Shri Ramsingh Budhiya as an

74

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

admissible document is totally perverse, without application of mind

and contrary to the evidence on record.

158. The second document i.e. relied upon by the respondent no.2
committee while allowing the caste claim of the respondent no. 3 is an
alleged rent agreement for the year 1932 in the name of the great
grand-father of the respondent no.3 Shri Budhia Roda and the affidavit
filed by Radha B.Adukiya. The said alleged rent agreement was relied
upon by the respondent no.3 before the respondent no.2 committee
much later. In the said alleged document the term ‘compensation’ or
‘royalty’ was mentioned. The alleged caste of great grand-father of the
respondent no.3 ‘Sikh Chamar’ was allegedly mentioned. There is no
requirement in law to mention the caste of a tenant in any rent
agreement. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.3 could
not explain as to why the mentioning of the caste of the tenant was
necessitated in the said alleged rent agreement. Be that as it may, the
Vigilance Cell had repeatedly mentioned in the reports submitted
before the respondent no.2 committee that the address mentioned on
the said alleged rent agreement was incomplete and thus the Vigilance
Cell could not conduct any enquiry in respect of authenticity of the
said rent agreement.

159. In the impugned order, however, the respondent no.2 committee

though referred to the said objection mentioned in the Vigilance Cell
report dated 16th April, 2014 totally overlooked the said objection. The
respondent no.2 committee however placed reliance on the alleged
affidavit made on 26th October, 2017 by Smt. Radha Dhanavarilal
Adukiya, the grand daughter of Jamnadas Chunilal Adukiya who was
alleged to be the owner of the said property and alleged to have rented

75

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

out a small portion thereof in favour of the great grand father of the
respondent no.3 as far back as in the year 1932. The said document
was tendered by the respondent no.3 in the meeting held on 27 th
October, 2017. There was no opportunity available to the petitioners to
oppose the authenticity of the said affidavit. Be that as it may, there is
no dispute that the respondent no. 2 committee did not refer the said
alleged affidavit to the Vigilance Cell for further enquiry.

160. A perusal of the order indicates that the respondent no.2

committee heavily relied upon upon the said affidavit of Smt. Radha
Dhanavarilal Adukiya made on 26th October, 2017 tendered in the
meeting held on 27th October, 2017. It is held by the respondent no.2
committee that in the said affidavit it was mentioned that the rent
agreement had taken place between her grand father Jamnadas
Chunilal Adukia and the great grand father of the respondent no.3
Budhia Roda. The said premises were given for staying during the
period of 1932 to 1949. The said deponent of the affidavit alleged to
have identified the signatures of her grand-father on the said rent
agreement. The respondent no.2 committee did not bother to make any
further enquiry in respect of the said alleged rent agreement on which
no enquiry could be conducted by the Vigilance Cell for lack of
complete address. The respondent no.2 committee did not call upon
the respondent no.3 to prove both those documents to the satisfaction
of the respondent no.2 committee.

161. It is thus clear that both these documents relied upon by the
respondent no.2 committee i.e. alleged rent agreement and the said
affidavit dated 26th October, 2017 were without any opinion on the
authenticity of those two documents from the Vigilance Cell. Both

76

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

these documents have been accepted merely on an erroneous

assumption that none of the petitioners had objected to the said
documents orally or in writing. The respondent no.2 committee had
thus no option than to accept the said documents as evidence of the
residence of the great grand-father of the respondent no.3 in
Maharashtra and as evidence of caste. In our view, this finding of the
respondent no.2 committee is totally perverse and without application
of mind. Mentioning of a caste in any private document such as
alleged rent agreement cannot be conclusive to prove the caste of any
applicant. The said alleged document did not prove even the factum of
residence of the great grand-father in Maharashtra on deemed date.
The respondent no.3 had not even disclosed the source of both these
documents in her application for caste claim or even thereafter in any
of the pleadings before the respondent no.2 committee. The said
alleged affidavit was not relied upon before this Court when the earlier
caste validity certificate was set aside by this Court and the matter was
remanded back.

162. The respondent no.2 committee in paragraph 9 of the impugned

order has held that the Vigilance Cell had failed to discharge its duty
by simply observing that due to incomplete address, enquiry could not
be done in respect of the said rent agreement dated 20 th July, 1932.
The vigilance officer ought to have informed the respondent no.3 or
could have obtained complete address so as to complete the enquiry in
respect of the said document. The Vigilance Cell officer however did
not obtain incomplete address. This part of the reasoning recorded by
the respondent no.2 committee is also totally perverse. It was the duty
of the respondent no.2 committee to satisfy itself about the authenticity
of a document relied upon by an applicant in support of her caste

77

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

claim. The respondent no.2 committee was not prevented from

directing the respondent no.3 (original applicant) to give complete
address of the said premises. The respondent no.2 committee has
thereby abdicated its duty to call upon the respondent no.3 to prove the
said document to the satisfaction of the respondent no.2 committee
instead of blaming the Vigilance Cell.

163. A perusal of the said affidavit relied upon by the respondent no.3
dated 25th September, 2017 in the last meeting before the respondent
no.2 committee indicates that even in the said affidavit, the deponent of
the said affidavit did not give the complete address of the said
premises. In the said affidavit, the deponent has alleged to have
recognized the signatures of her grand father on the rent agreement
which was alleged to have been executed 55 years back. The deponent
of the said affidavit herself was about 82 years old on the date of
affirmation of the said affidavit. She has signed in Hindi. The
contents of the said affidavit in English has not been interpreted to her
in Hindi. The respondent no.3 has not explained as to how she
obtained such an affidavit and that also in last meeting. The
respondent no.2 however somehow accepted such affidavit having no
evidenciary value in law and allowed the caste claim of the respondent
no.3.

164. On a plain reading of the said affidavit itself it is clear that the
said affidavit has been obtained with a view to create a false evidence
in support of her caste claim. The respondent no.2 committee could
not have accepted the said affidavit without any substantiation. It is
clear that the said affidavit was filed so as to support a false claim of
the respondent no.3 as caste Mochi. Under Rules 2(e), ‘deemed date’

78

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

is defined as 10th August, 1950 that the date of presidential order for
schedule castes.

165. Rule 3 provides that the Competent Authority may issue a caste
certificate to the applicant who is a permanent resident of a concerned
area on deemed date. Rule 3(2) provides that in case of the applicant,
who is born after the deemed date, the place of ordinary residence for
the purpose of issuance of caste certificate shall be the place of
permanent residence of his father or grand-father or great grand-father.
In our view, even if the said alleged rent agreement dated 27th July,
1932 is considered, it provides that the tenant will use the said
premises only for the business of cobbler. However, in the affidavit
obtained by the respondent no.3 from Smt. Radha Dhanavarilal
Adukiya, it is alleged that the grand-father of the deponent had
informed her that he had given the said premises on tenancy basis to
the great grand-father of the respondent no.3 under an indenture of
tenancy from 1932 to 1949. The said great grand-father of the
respondent no.3 was to use the said premises to reside and run cobbler
business.

166. The deponent of the said affidavit has made additional statement
in the said affidavit which were not there in the said indenture of
tenancy. The respondent no.2 committee did not bother to find out
whether the applicant had satisfied the contents of residence and more
particularly in Rule 3(2) of the Caste Certificate Rules before issuing
the caste validity certificate in favour of the respondent no.3. It was
not the case of the respondent no.3 that the said address mentioned in
the said alleged rent agreement was the place of permanent residence
of his great grand-father and continued to be the place of permanent

79

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

residence address on the deemed date i.e. 10th August, 1950. The
affidavit of Smt. Radha Dhanavarilal Adukiya relied upon by the
respondent no.3 itself would falsify the case of the respondent no.3
which was relied upon to prove the place of permanent residence of the
great grand-father of respondent no.3 in Mumbai. The impugned order
passed by the respondent no.2 committee discloses a total non-
application of mind on this aspect also. In our view, though the
respondent no.3 has committed fraud on Constitution for availing
benefit available to the reserved category persons though was not
entitled to, the respondent no.2 committee has accepted the false case
of the respondent no.3 by committing the gross violation of the
provisions of Caste Certificate Act and Caste Certificate Rules.

167. The respondent no.3 had produced a Ration Card in the name of
her mother issued in the year 1983 at the Ghatkopar address, the
passport of the father of the respondent no.3 which is also placed on
record in the writ petition which clearly indicated that the place of birth
of the father of the respondent no.3 was in a village Khokhar at Punjab.
The date of birth was 17th April, 1954. The father of the respondent
no.3 therefore was obviously not born in Maharashtra and was born
after the deemed date. PAN card issued to the father of the respondent
no. 3 also shows his date of birth as 17th April, 1954. It is thus clear
beyond reasonable doubt that the father of the respondent no.3 was not
even born on the deemed date i.e. 10 th August, 1950. The father of the
respondent no.3 had also applied for caste certificate based on various
false documents showing the place of birth as of Palghar.

168. On the basis of such fabricated document, father of the

respondent no.3 first obtained a caste certificate. Subsequently, the

80

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

said caste certificate was cancelled by the Competent Authority. He

did not challenge the said order passed by the competent authority.
The respondent no. 3 has not disputed that in the passport issued to
father of the respondent no. 3, his place of birth was at Khokhar,
Punjab and the date of birth was 17th April, 1954. In our view, it was
systematic fraud committed by the respondent no.3 with the assistance
of her father to obtain the caste certificate Mochi by fabricating the
records to enable her to contest the election for member of Parliament
in the Constituency reserved for reserved category candidate and other
benefits available to such caste under Constitution of India.

169. We shall now deal with the judgments relied upon by both the
parties. The Supreme Court in case of Parsram and Anr. (supra)
considered the item 9 in part X (Punjab) for the Schedule II to the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Caste), Order 1950 which read as
‘Chamar, Jatia Chamar, Reghar, Raigarh, Ramdasi or Ravidasi.’ It was
the case of the applicant in that matter that the ‘Chamar’ and ‘Mochi’
were not two separate castes and the word ‘Mochi’ was applicable to
‘Chamar’ who actually started working in leather. In the said
judgment, the Supreme Court adverted to earlier judgment in case of
B. Basavalingappa v/s. D. Municharappa, (1968), AIR 1965 SC 1269
in which it was held that it was not open to any one to seek for any
modification in the order by producing evidence to show that though
caste A alone is mentioned in the Constitution of India (Scheduled
Caste), Order 1950, caste B is also a part of caste A as such deemed to
be including in caste A. The Supreme Court in that case held that the
applicant was found to be Mochi and not a Chamar and therefore his
nomination paper was rightly rejected. He tried to prove by evidence
that he was a Chamar but he did not succeed therein.

81

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

170. In this case, the documents produced by the respondent no. 3

indicated that the forefather of the respondent no.3 who were residence
of Punjab were known as Ravidasia Mochi. In the tenancy agreement
which was not proved by the respondent no.3 the caste of the great
grand-father Budhia Roda of the respondent no. 3 was mentioned as
Chamar. In the bonafide certificate issued by Khalsa college, it was
mentioned that the grand-father of the respondent no.3 Shri Ramsingh
Budhiya was Sikh Chamar. In the application for caste certificate filed
by the respondent no.3, she claimed to be of caste Mochi. A perusal of
the letter dated 7th August, 2013 addressed by Mr.Ravi Rana, the
husband of respondent no.3 to the Management of Kartika High
School and Junior College, Kurla indicates that the original school
leaving certificate did not mention the caste ‘Mochi’ of the respondent
no.3. The Application for admission dated 23 rd April, 1991 signed by
the mother of the respondent no.3, the caste with sub-caste and religion
was mentioned as ‘Sikh’. In the column ‘whether a member of
scheduled caste/scheduled tribe and documentary evidence thereof’ it
was mentioned as ‘N.A. (B.C.)’

171. The original birth certificate of respondent no.3 did not mention
the caste Mochi. In the Jamabandi extract of village Khokhar, Tal.
Ropar, it was mentioned that the forefather of the respondent no.3
belong to caste ‘Labana Garha’. In the impugned order, the respondent
no.2 committee while accepting the bonafide certificate issued by the
Principal, Gurunanak Khalsa College dated 11th February, 2014 as
admissible evidence, has further held that the record of caste in the said
document is as Sikh Chamar, which is included in the list of caste at
serial no. 11 wherein ‘Bhambhi, Bhambi, Asadaru, Asodi, Chamdia,

82

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Chamar, Chamari, Chambhar, Chamgar, Haralayya, Harali, Khalpa,

Machlgar, Mochigar, Mathar, Mathig, Mochi, Telgu Mochi, Kamati
Mochi, Ranigar, Rohidas, Nona, Ramnami, Rohit, Samgar, Satnami,
Sarajyabanshi, Surajyanami’ castes are included.

172. It is accordingly held that the said bonafide certificate is

accepted as admissible as the evidence of caste claim of respondent
no.3 and has proved of residence in the State. Though, cast Chamar is
included at serial no.11, admittedly Sikh Chamar is not included in the
said entry 11. The respondent no.3 however in her application has
claimed the caste Mochi and not Sikh Chamar. Supreme Court in case
of The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v/s. KeshaoVishwanath
Sonone and Ors. (supra) has held that the High Court could not have
entertained the claim or looked into the evidence to find out and decide
that the tribe ‘Gowari’ is part of scheduled tribe ‘Gond Gowari’ which
is included in the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order 1950.
Admittedly, the caste ‘Sikh Chamar’ is not included in the said entry 11
of the Schedule. The respondent no.3 did not produce any other
document showing her caste as Mochi or the caste of her forefather as
Mochi in the State of Maharashtra on the deemed date.

173. Supreme Court in case of Srish Kumar Choudhury v/s. State of

Tripura and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 991 has held that the entries in the
presidential order have to be taken as final and the scope of enquiry
and admissibility of evidence is confined to showing what an entry in
the presidential order is intended to be. It is not open to the Court to
make any addition or subtraction from the presidential order. The
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment
applies to the facts of this case.

83

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

174. Supreme Court in case of Bharati Balkrishna Dhongade (supra)

has held that burden of proof lies on the person who claims to belong
to that caste, tribes or class. State Government has no power to amend
the presidential orders. Courts cannot and should not expand
jurisdiction to deal with the question as to whether a particular caste,
sub-caste, a group or part of tribe or sub-tribe is included in any of the
entries mentioned in the presidential orders issued under Articles 341
and 342 particularly. Such presidential orders cannot be amended or
varied except by law made by Parliament and that too by making a law
in that regard. It is held that a caste may fall under category of OBC in
one State but the said caste may not classified as OBC in other State.

175. In this case, the respondent no.2 committee has directly or

indirectly amended entry 11 of the Schedule II to the Constitution of
India (Scheduled Caste), Order 1950 by reading the caste ‘Sikh
Chamar’ in entry 11 which is not permissible. In any event, the
respondent no.3 failed to discharge the burden of proof on her under
Section 8 of the Caste Certificate Act read with Rules. The impugned
order is ex-facie in violation of the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court.

176. In our view, the terms ‘Chamar’ and ‘Sikh Chamar’ are not
synonymous. The terms ‘Sikh Chamar’ is also not synonymous with
the term ‘Mochi’ prescribed under entry 11 to the Schedule II to the
Constitution of India (Scheduled Caste), Order 1950. This Court in
case of Rajpati Bargav Yadav which case was heard along with
Kesarben Murji Patel (supra) has upheld the order passed by the
Scrutiny Committee rejecting the claim for caste validity certificate.

84

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

The applicant in that matter had relied upon several documents along
with application for grant of certificate which were found to be false
and fabricated. The applicant thereafter relied upon new documents
and stated that he did not want to rely on those documents which were
suspicious or were alleged to be false and fabricated. The Scrutiny
Committee accepted the documents subsequently submitted during the
course of enquiry having found those additional documents to be
genuine. The Scrutiny Committee, however, rejected the caste claim
on the ground of fraud committed by him for obtaining the caste
certificate. This Court confirmed the said order passed by the Scrutiny
Committee rejecting the caste claim on the ground of fraud committed
by the applicant in obtaining caste certificate. The said judgment of
this Court in case of Kesarben Murji Patel (supra) has been confirmed
by the Supreme Court reported in (2019) SCC OnLine SC 981 and
applies to the facts of this case.

177. Supreme Court in case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v/s.

Jagannath and Ors., (1994) 1 SCC 1 has held that a person who’s case
is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be
summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. If he withholds a
vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he
would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the
opposite party. A judgment or decree to be obtained by fraud has to be
treated as nullity and non-est by law. In our view, the respondent no.3
in this case clearly committed a fraud upon the respondent no.2
committee by relying upon false and fabricated documents to obtain
benefit made available to the persons of reserved category under the
Constitution of India. The respondent no.2 committee had closed its

85

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

eyes to the fraud committed by the respondent no.3 and validated her
caste certificate.

178. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
2675 of 2019 also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court
in case of Juwarsingh and Ors. (supra) in case of Periyar and
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. (supra) and judgment of this Court in case of
Rajendra s/o Shivram Thakur which would assist the case of the
petitioners.

179. In our view, though the respondent no.3 committee rendered a

finding that the forefather of the respondent no.3 were “Sikh Chamar”,
the respondent no.2 accepted the caste claim of the respondent no.3 as
“Mochi” which is a separate caste prescribed at Serial No.11 of the
Schedule the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The order
discloses perversity on the face of it. There is no substance in the
submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 that
the respondent no.2 committee did not rely upon any of the documents
in respect of which the objections were raised by the petitioners in the
impugned order. In the complaint filed by one of the petitioners and
also subsequently in the written arguments before the respondent no.2
committee, the objections were raised by the petitioners that the caste
claim filed by the respondent no.3 was based on fabricated and
fraudulent documents. All the documents except the above referred
two documents have been discarded by the respondent no.2 committee
by accepting the submissions made by the petitioners and also the
objections raised by the Vigilance Cell and found as not acceptable as
admissible evidence.

86

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

180. The proceedings between the respondent no.3 (original

applicant) and the petitioners (original complainants) were not
adversarial in nature. There was no lis between the respondent no.3
and the petitioners in the said proceedings before the respondent no.2
committee. The respondent no.2 committee therefore could not have
discarded the objection raised by the Vigilance Cell and also the
complainant on the ground that no objections were allegedly raised by
the petitioners in respect of those two documents. The respondent no.2
committee has failed in its mandatory duty to find out the truth before
allowing the caste claim made by the respondent no.3. The role of the
complainant was to bring to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee the
fraudulent and fabricated documents. The Scrutiny Committee though
has power of Civil Court in some respect, cannot treat the application
made by a party for caste claim and the complainant as adversial
proceedings. There is thus no substance in the submission of the
learned senior counsel that those two documents cannot be allowed to
be challenged in the writ petition.

181. Insofar as the caste validity certificate of the father of the

respondent no.3 is concerned, merely because the said caste validity
certificate was invalidated ex-parte as canvassed by the learned senior
counsel for the respondent no.3, the fact remains that the said order has
not been impugned by the father of the respondent no.3. The
respondent no.3 thus could not have relied upon the said caste
certificate issued in favour of the father of the respondent no.3 and the
documents on the basis of which the said caste certificate was issued.
The Scrutiny Committee has no power to interpret any document
contrary to the entries in the Schedule to the Constitution (Scheduled

87

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Castes) Order, 1950. If such interpretation of the Scrutiny Committee

is found contrary to law, shows perversity and if a fraud is committed
on the Constitution by an applicant, this Court has ample power and
duty to interfere with such perverse and fraudulently obtained order
and to set aside the same. We are not inclined to accept the submission
made by the learned senior counsel that the impugned order is passed
after complying with all the provisions of the Caste Certificate Act and
the Caste Certificate Rules.

182. Insofar as the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Vasant

Pandurang Narwade (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel
for the respondent no.3 is concerned, there is no dispute about the
proposition of law laid down in the said judgment that the Scrutiny
Committee has to return the findings as to whether or not the applicant
belongs to the particular claim as claimed by him on the basis of the
certificate and other documents produced by him. However, such
documents have to be relevant and authentic.

183. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in case of Minakshi

Manohar Gholap (supra) is concerned, the case of the petitioner in
that case was that all the documents of the year 1934 in respect of the
cousin grand-father of the petitioner were though referred to by the
Committee in the impugned order, the same were not considered while
deciding the claim of the petitioners. The Scrutiny Committee had not
recorded the reasons properly while invalidating the claim of the
petitioners. In that context, this Court held that there was a reference
to the documents of the year 1934 in respect of the cousin grand-father
of the petitioners by name Sadashiv only in the submission made on
behalf of the respondent no.4. There was however no consideration of

88

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

the said document while recording the reasons for invalidating the
claim of the petitioner.

184. It is held that though there were many documents which could
have disproved the case of the petitioner that would be no ground for
not considering the important document which could have thrown
much light on the controversy. There may be a dozen documents
against a party but a 13th relevant document could turn the table and if
the 13th document is not considered by an authority, the order would
be bad in law. This Court held that the Scrutiny Committee was duty
bound to consider the document tendered by the petitioner, more so,
when the document was old and was specifically relied on by the
petitioner. The non-consideration of the material document in respect
of the cousin grand-father of the petitioner would vitiate the order of
the Scrutiny Committee. In that matter, the Scrutiny Committee has
not considered the document of the year 1934 which was referred only
in the statement made on behalf of one of the party. The facts before
this Court are different.

185. In this case, the respondent no.3 had relied upon all the
fabricated and fraudulent documents. The objection in respect of all
the other documents relied upon by the respondent no.3 raised by the
petitioners and the Vigilance Cell were accepted. The remaining two
documents which were also ex-facie fabricated and obtained
fraudulently also ought to have been discarded by the respondent no.2
Committee. The said judgment of this Court in case of Minakshi
Manohar Gholap (supra) is thus clearly distinguishable in the facts of
this case and would not assist the case of the respondent no.3.

89

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

186. There is no substance in the submission of the learned senior

counsel for the respondent no.3 that those two documents produced by
the respondent no.3 were not objected by the petitioner and thus were
rightly held admissible by the respondent no.2 Committee. The
Scrutiny Committee was under an impression that the application filed
by the respondent no.3 for caste claim and the complaint filed by the
petitioners alleging that the documents produced by the respondent
no.3 were fabricated and fraudulent were in the nature of litigation
between two private parties in personam and was an adversarial
litigation. The impugned order discloses total non application of mind
on the part of respondent no.2 committee. The Scrutiny Committee
appears to have applied Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 in respect of those two documents contrary to law and well
settled principles of law by the Supreme Court and this Court. Even if
there is no complaint filed by any person opposing the caste claim, the
Scrutiny Committee is bound to conduct proper and full fledged
enquiry into the correctness of the caste claim and authenticity of the
documents to obviate any false caste claim and any fraud on the
Constitution of India. Even in such case, Scrutiny Committee cannot
decide on the promise that there being no complaint or objection to the
applications, all documents are deemed to have accepted. Reliance
thus placed by the learned senior counsel on the judgment of this Court
in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak & Anr.
(supra) will not assist the case of the respondent no.3 on this ground.

187. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 could not dispute
that the alleged affidavit of Radha Dhanavarilal Adukiya was tendered
in the last meeting by the respondent no.3 and was not referred to the

90

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

Vigilance Cell for the further enquiry. There was thus no occasion for
the petitioners to raise any objection for the said affidavit. Be that as it
may, it was the duty of the respondent no.2 committee to refer the said
document also to the Vigilance Cell. This Court has already observed
in the oral judgment dated 28th June, 2017 in Writ Petition No.325 of
2015 filed by one of the petitioner herein while setting aside the earlier
order passed by the Scrutiny Committee allowing the claim of the
respondent no.3 that the procedure adopted by the Scrutiny Committee
in granting validity certificate in favour of the respondent no.3 without
undertaking the Vigilance Cell enquiry was completely extra ordinary.

188. This Court while setting aside the earlier order had made it clear
that the order shall be passed in accordance with law. If the Scrutiny
Committee finds that any further Vigilance Cell enquiry is required to
be conducted, the same shall be done. The Scrutiny Committee thus
could not rely upon the affidavit of Radha Dhanavarilal Adukiya
without referring the same to Vigilance Cell for enquiry. The Scrutiny
Committee did not record any reason as to why the said affidavit was
not referred to Vigilance Cell for enquiry. Learned senior counsel
could not dispute that the petitioners had applied for the opportunity to
cross examine the Vice-Principal of the said Gurunanak Khalsa
College of Arts, Science and Commerce in view of the petitioners
having not accepted the said certificate produced by the Vice-Principal
of the said College and in view of the objection raised by the
respondent no.3, the said application of the petitioners was rejected.

189. Insofar as judgment of this Court in case of Niraj Kamlakar

More (supra) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.3 is concerned, it is submitted that though the said

91

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

judgment has been referred to a larger Bench, the issue involved in the
said judgment has been referred on the different point. Learned senior
counsel vehemently urged that the said judgment continues to hold the
field. Learned senior counsel could not however demonstrate as to
how the said judgment of this Court in case of Niraj Kamlakar More
(supra) holds the field even today. There is no substance in the
submission of the learned senior counsel that the respondent no.2
committee had accepted those two documents as admissible only after
considering the report from the Vigilance Cell. There is no merit in
the submission of the learned senior counsel that none of the
petitioners have raised any ground to the effect that the respondent
no.2 committee has recorded an incorrect finding that no objection was
raised in respect of those two documents by either of the petitioners.
Be that as it may, it was the mandatory duty of the respondent no.2
committee to satisfy itself by calling upon applicant i.e. respondent
no.3 herein to prove her caste claim by producing authentic and
reliable documents and not by drawing an adverse inference against the
petitioners and holding that those documents were allegedly not
objected to by the petitioners.

190. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 could not dispute
that the objection in respect of the documents produced by the
respondent no.3 were already raised by the complainant on the ground
that those documents were fraudulent and fabricated. No opportunity
was given to raise objection in respect of affidavit of Radhabai
Adukiya. Learned senior counsel strongly placed reliance on the
averments made in the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner in
Writ Petition No.3370 of 2018 and more particularly in paragraphs 6 to
10 in support of the submission that the petitioner himself has admitted

92

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

that the alleged indenture of tenancy was not objected in view of the
advise of the learned counsel as the said aspect was not realized earlier.

191. The Vigilance Cell had already raised an objection in respect of

the said alleged rent agreement on the ground that the said authenticity
of the said document could not be verified by the Vigilance Cell in
view of the incomplete address mentioned on the said alleged
document. Admittedly the respondent no.3 did not furnish complete
address of the premise either to the petitioners or before the respondent
no.2 committee nor the respondent no.2 committee directed the
respondent no.3 to furnish the correct address to enable the Vigilance
Cell to make any enquiry in respect of the authenticity of the said
document. Be that as it may, the said alleged tenancy agreement would
neither prove the caste of the respondent no.3 nor the address of the
forefather on the deemed date.

192. Insofar as reliance on the Rule 13 of the Caste Certificate Rules

by the learned senior counsel in support of the contention that the
Vigilance Cell is not empowered to record any conclusion or option is
concerned, the said Rule has to be read with Rule 17(7). In this case
the earlier order passed by the respondent no.2 committee allowing the
caste claim of the respondent no.3 was set aside by this Court also on
the ground that the respondent no.2 committee had allowed the said
caste claim without conducting any Vigilance enquiry. This Court had
also directed the respondent no.2 committee to refer the documents to
the Vigilance Cell for further enquiry if necessary. The said power
vested in the Scrutiny Committee is coupled with duty. The proviso to
Rule 17(7) clearly indicates that the Scrutiny Committee shall record
its reasons for discarding the Vigilance Cell. No such reasons are

93

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

recorded by the respondent no.2 committee for discarding the objection

raised by the Vigilance Cell in respect of those two documents. Rule
17(6) also has to be read with Rule 17(7) with proviso.

193. The respondent no.3 did not produce any proof by relying upon
any authentic and reliable document to prove her caste claim. The
respondent no.2 committee however did not find any lacuna in the said
documents. A perusal of the Rule 17(11) of the Caste Certificate Rules
clearly indicates that if any case is referred to the Vigilance Cell and if
upon considering the report of the Vigilance Cell, if the Scrutiny
Committee is not satisfied about the claims of the applicant, it shall
call upon the applicant to prove his caste claim, by discharging his
burden, as contemplated under section 8 of the Act by issuing a notice
in Form – 25, coupled with copy of the report of Vigilance enquiry.
The Scrutiny Committee is thereafter required to follow the requisite
procedure prescribed under the said Rule 17(11). Under Rule 17(12),
the applicant is required to disclose all the true and correct information,
including disclosure of adverse entries of material, failing which it
shall be lawful for the Scrutiny Committee to draw adverse inference
against the applicant.

194. Under Rule 17(13), if the Scrutiny Committee finds and

concludes that the report of Vigilance Cell is false or unrealistic, it
shall record the reason in decision and direct appropriate action as
contemplated under section 14, read with sections 11 and 12 of the Act
and also recommend Departmental enquiry against such Vigilance
Officer after complying with the principles of natural justice. In this
case admittedly no finding is rendered by the respondent no.2
committee that any of the report and more particularly in respect of

94

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

those documents was false and unrealistic. No action as contemplated

under section 17(13) is initiated against the Vigilance Cell Officer in
respect of any of the report submitted by the Vigilance Cell to the
respondent no.2 committee and more particularly in respect of those
two documents. The respondent no.2 committee has already accepted
the objections raised by the petitioners and also the Vigilance Cell in
respect of all other documents referred to and relied upon by the
respondent no.3.

195. Before the respondent no.2 committee, one of the petitioners

Jayant V. Vanjari had specifically raised an objection on 1 st March,
2014 that the caste certificate had been obtained by the respondent no.3
on the basis of the false, fake and forged documents. It was also
brought to the notice of the Scrutiny Committee that the respondent
no.3 had obtained the earlier caste certificate by committing fraud and
had applied for the said caste certificate by mentioning the bogus and
false declaration as she had applied for the employment in the Chetna
College, Bandra had not come with clean hands. The said petitioner
had called upon the respondent no.2 committee to confiscate the said
caste certificate and to initiate the prosecution against the wrong dues.
All these objections raised by the petitioners calling upon the
respondent no.2 committee to withdraw the earlier caste validity
certificate illegally granted in favour of the respondent no.3 were
already on record before the respondent no.2 committee when the
proceedings were remanded back by the respondent no.2 committee by
this Court for considering afresh. Learned senior counsel for the
respondent no.3 thus cannot be allowed to urge that upon remand of
the matter by this Court to the respondent no.2 committee, the
petitioners ought to have raised similar objection in respect of each

95

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

document including those two documents which are accepted as

admissible by the respondent no.2 committee again.

196. We have also perused the original records and proceedings of the
respondent no.2 committee which were produced before us by the
learned A.G.P. for the respondent no.3. A perusal of the original record
indicates that the respondent no.3 had filed the said affidavit of Radha
Banarsilal Adukia, notarized on 26th October, 2017 along with reply
filed by her to the Vigilance Reports dated 26 th September, 2017 and 9th
October, 2017. In the record filed before us by the learned A.G.P. on
behalf of the State does not indicate that the original of the said register
referred to in the impugned order allegedly produced by the Vice
Principal of the said Gurunanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science and
Commerce was produced before the respondent no.2 committee. The
said original register or even the relevant page of the original register is
not found in the record produced before us by the learned A.G.P. If the
Vice Principal of the said Gurunanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science
and Commerce already had the original register in his custody, why
inspection of the original was not offered to the Vigilance Cell though
repeatedly called upon. This aspect has not been explained by the Vice
Principal of the said College before the respondent no.2 committee.
There is no endorsement made in the record that the respondent no.2
committee had returned the original register after verifying the
correctness of the said register to the said Vice Principal of the said
Gurunanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science and Commerce by
taking certified copy thereof on record.

197. Insofar as submission of the learned senior counsel that since the
Vice-Principal was not called as witness for recording his evidence at

96

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

the instance of the respondent no.3, the respondent no.2 committee was
justifying in not permitting the cross examination of the said Vice
Principal of Gurunanak Khalsa College of Arts, Science and
Commerce is concerned, if according to the respondent no.2
committee, the provisions of the Evidence Act and more particularly
section 139 was applicable, on the same basis, the respondent no.2
committee could not have relied upon the said document without
existence and the contents thereof having been proved by the
respondent no.3. The respondent no.2 committee has applied different
yardstick to the application made by the petitioners for seeking the
permission for cross examination of the Vice Principal of the said
College who had alleged to have been produced the said register while
relying upon the said disputed document in the impugned order. Be
that as it may, the said Vice Principal stated before the Scrutiny
Committee that he could not say as to when the said entries were made.

198. Learned senior counsel has distinguished the judgment of

Supreme Court in case of Chaturbhuj Pande & Ors. (supra), judgment
of Supreme Court in case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd.
(supra) on the ground that the power of the Appellate Court in the
appeal arising out of the order passed by the Reference Court under the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act cannot be compared with the power
of the writ court. In our view, since the order passed by the respondent
no.2 committee allowing the caste claim of the respondent no.3 is
made on fabricated and fraudulent document and amounts to fraud
committed upon the Constitution of India by the respondent no.3, the
writ Court while exercising the powers under extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not powerless to set
right such fraud on Constitution of India. Court cannot be a silent

97

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

spectator. Under section 7 of the said Scheduled Caste Certificate Act,

though the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee under the said Act
shall be final and shall not be challenged before any authority or Court,
the said order can be challenged before the High Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. There is thus no merit in this
submission of the learned senior counsel.

199. Insofar as judgment of the Supreme Court in case of

Juwarsingh and Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioners is concerned, the said judgment is distinguished by the
learned senior counsel by the respondent no.3 on the ground that the
appreciation of the evidence before the trial court cannot be applicable
to the court exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India. We have already summarized the power of
writ Court in the earlier part of this judgment.

200. Learned senior counsel could not distinguish the judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court in case of Rajendra s/o Shivram Thakur
(supra). Full Bench of this Court in the said judgment held that a
candidate desirous of seeking a caste certificate shall have to apply to
the competent authority having jurisdiction over the area or place to
which he/she or his/her father or grandfather originally belongs or was/
is an ordinary residents or native of that place, except in cases where
such applicants can produce tribe certificate issued in favour of their
father or grandfather issued by the competent authority of their original
place of residence as on the date of presidential order, of their tribe.
The Full Bench accordingly held that that the view expressed in case
of Niraj More (supra) does not state the law correctly as it was not the
case of lack of territorial jurisdiction, but lack of inherent jurisdiction.

98

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

The Full Bench of this Court approved the view expressed in case of
Rajendra s/o Shivram Thakur (supra).

201. Division Bench of this Court in case of Rajendra s/o Shivram

Thakur (supra) has been approved by the Full Bench in case of
Rajendra s/o Shivram Thakur (supra), 2019(4) Mh.L.J. 721. In our
view, learned senior counsel could not distinguish the judgment of
Supreme Court in case of State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Keshao
Vishwanath Sonano (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners. There is no merit in the submission of the learned senior
counsel that the documents produced by the respondent no.3 shows
that she was of Scheduled Caste.

202. Learned senior counsel for the respondent no.3 made an attempt
to distinguish the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Parsram
and Anr. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners
on the ground that the term ‘Mochi’ was not included in item 9 in Part
X Punjab of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In item
no.11 in paragraph (10) of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order,
1950, the term “Chamar” and “Mochi” both are included. The
respondent no.3 however had produced two documents which though
were allegedly proved had referred to the term ‘Sikh-Chamar’ and not
‘Mochi’. The term ‘Chamar’ and the term ‘Mochi’ are two separate
castes mentioned in the said item no.11 in Part X of the said
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The caste ‘Chamar’ and
‘Mochi’ both were mentioned in the said Schedule and were different.

203. The respondent no.2 committee had not rendered any finding on
the basis of those two documents that the respondent no.3 had proved

99

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

her caste claim in respect of the caste ‘Mochi’. The respondent no.2
committee has directly or indirectly amended the said entry no.11 in
Part 10 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 by inserting
the term ‘Sikh Chamar’ in the said entry and has exceeded its
jurisdiction. The new entry could be inserted only by the Parliament
by electing law or amendment and not by Scrutiny Committee. Also it
is well settled by the judgments of the Supreme Court that the entries
in the Presidential Order cannot be added to by synonyum.

204. The Supreme Court in case of Bhaiyalal (supra) has held that in
order to determine whether or not a particular caste is a scheduled caste
within the meaning of Article 341, one has to look at the public
notification issued by the President in that behalf. In that case, the
notification referred to Chamar, Jatav or Mochi, and so, in dealing with
the question in dispute between the parties, the enquiry which the
Election Tribunal can hold is whether or not the appellant is a Chamar,
Jatav or Mochi. The plea that though the appellant is not a Chamar as
such, he can claim the same status by reason of the fact that he belongs
to the Dohar caste which is a sub-caste of the Chamar caste, cannot be
accepted. The Supreme Court held that an enquiry of this kind would
not be permissible having regard to the provisions contained in Article
341. In this case, the documents relied upon by the respondent no.3
which were even if considered as proved, were showing the caste ‘Sikh
Chamar’ which was not included in item 11 of Part X of the
Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. The said entry referred
to ‘Chamar’ as well as ‘Mochi’ separately. The said judgment would
assist the case of the petitioners and not the respondent no.3. In our
view, there were two sets of the documents produced by the respondent
no.3 which were contradictory to each other before the respondent no.2

100

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

committee. The respondent no.3 had claimed to be ‘Sikh Chamar’ as

well as ‘Ravidasiya Mochi’. The respondent no.3 has not given up
one of the two castes i.e. Sikh Chamar or ‘Ravidasiya Mochi’. It was
not the case of the respondent no.3 that she was of the caste ‘Mochi’
under the separate entry in the Schedule of the Constitution of India.

205. In our view, Mr.Korde, learned senior counsel is right in his

submission that the power of the writ court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India are vast. Writ Court even in certain
circumstances may permit the parties to adduce oral evidence in
appropriate cases. By accepting both these fabricated and fraudulent
documents produced by the respondent no.3, the respondent no.2
committee has caused injustice to the petitioners and has put its
imprimatur on such fraudulent caste claim. The outcome of such
enquiry and validating a caste certificate affects public at large in
every sector, may be at the stage of seeking admission in any
school or college or even at the stage of applying for employment or
even while contesting an election in perpetuity. A wrong caste validity
certificate granted in favour of the party who does not belong to that
caste may deprive a genuine and deserving person belonging to such
reserve category of the caste and of the benefits and all the benefits
prescribed in the Constitution of India. In our view, the impugned
order passed by the respondent no.2 committee accepting both these
fabricated and fraudulent documents is a clear case of inherent
improbability. Though the respondent no.3 herself had challenged the
part of the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 committee,
has cleverly not pursued the said writ petition bearing (L) No. 9426 of
2020. In our view, the term ‘Chamar’ and ‘Mochi’ are not synonymous
and are different identity.

101

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

206. In our view, the impugned order allowing the caste claim of the
respondent no.3 on the basis of those two documents is totally
perverse, contrary to the provisions of the said Caste Scrutiny Act, the
said Caste Certificate Rules and contrary to the principles of law laid
down by the Supreme Court and this Court in catena of decisions.

207. Under Section 7 of the Caste Certificate Act, it is mandatory

duty of the Caste Scrutiny Committee to cancel and confiscate caste
certificate suo-moto or otherwise by calling for the record and after
enquiry and to the correctness of such certificate, if it is of the opinion
that the certificate was obtained fraudulently by a person not belonging
to any of the Schedule Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes
(Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Special
Backward Category to the effect that either himself or his children
belong to such caste, tribes or classes after following the procedure as
prescribed and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of
being heard. In this case, though the complainant had brought to the
notice of the respondent no.2 committee that the respondent no.3 had
obtained a false caste certificate certifying to be a schedule caste and
though the petitioners had demonstrated that the said caste certificate
was obtained fraudulently by the respondent no.3, the scrutiny
committee did not cancel and confiscate the said false caste certificate
obtained by the respondent no.3 from the Competent Authority. The
respondent no.3 committee has thus failed to comply with its
mandatory duty under Section 7 of the Caste Certificate Act.

208. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Nutan Vidarbha

Shikshan Mandal v/s. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati

102

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

and Ors., 2007(2) Mh.L.J. 440 has dealt with the powers and duties of
the scrutiny committee to cancel, forfeit and confiscate a caste
certificate fraudulently obtained by a party. This Court in the said
judgment adverted to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) in which it was held that in case, the
certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the
parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false
claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the
accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude,
disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the
Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.

209. It is held that if the finding is recorded by the scrutiny committee

holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and
confiscation simultaneously, it would be communicated to the
educational institutions concerned or the appointing authority by
registered post with acknowledgment due with a request to cancel the
admission or the appointment. The principal etc. of the educational
institution is responsible for making the admission or the appointment
authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further
notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or
continue in office in a post.

210. The Division Bench in the said judgment held that where the
committee finds a certificate to have been obtained fraudulently, the
Caste Scrutiny Committee is left with no alternative than to direct
cancellation and confiscation of the certificate by following the
procedure prescribed for the same. Section 7 of the said Act
essentially deals with the powers of the scrutiny committee to verify

103

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

the caste claim and on the basis of such verification to pass an

appropriate order, while making it obligatory for the committee to
cancel and confiscate such certificate in a case where the same is found
to have been obtained fraudulently. Section 10 of the said Act provides
for withdrawal of the benefits secured by the claimants on the basis of
false caste certificate. It is further held that if the Caste Scrutiny
Committee finds the certificate to have been obtained fraudulently, it
has to confiscate it on the cancellation thereof. The process before the
scrutiny committee does not come to an end by mere declaration in that
regard.

211. It is held that the constitution endeavours for social and

economic upliftment of the down-trodden population of this country
and social equality of status and dignity of person, by providing
reservation in services of the State and in education by operation of
Articles 15, 16 read with 14 of the Constitution of India. The
provisions for reservation of seats or benefits in educational
institutions for reserved category are being made in pursuance of the
constitutional mandate in that regard.

212. It is not in dispute that under various Articles of the Constitution

of India, various seats in the election of statutory bodies, legislative
assembly and parliament are reserved exclusively for candidates falling
under any of such reserved categories prescribed in the Constitution of
India. Such benefits which are available to such reserved category
candidates cannot be availed by any person who is not falling under
category. This Court also held while construing Section 10 of the said
Act that the statute nowhere distinguishes between intentional or
unintentional false claim, though it does not differentiate between the

104

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

false claim on the basis of the certificate and the false declaration in
obtaining such certificates.

213. In our view the caste claim made by the respondent no.3 for
obtaining a caste certificate as schedule caste itself was fraudulent and
was made with intention to obtain various benefits available to a
candidate from such schedule caste category knowingly well that she
does not belong to that caste. The application thus itself was made
intentionally to make a fraudulent claim to enable the respondent no.3
to contest an election for member of parliament on the seat reserved for
a scheduled caste candidate. The said caste certificate obtained by the
respondent no.3 from the competent authority was obtained
fraudulently and thus it was the mandatory duty of the Caste Scrutiny
Committee to cancel the said fraudulently obtained caste certificate
and ought to have been confiscated. In paragraph 29 of the said
judgment, this Court held that the caste certificate is essentially
obtained to avail certain benefits in life of an individual, either may be
for educational purpose or for employment, or for other benefits like
contesting election.

214. This Court adverted to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of

State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v/s. A. Gurusamy, AIR 1997 SC 1199 in
which it was held by the Supreme Court that the Courts would not lend
assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution and an applicant
cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulent certificate
obtained from the authorities. This Court adverted to the judgment of
Supreme Court in case of Lilly Kutty v/s. Scrutiny Committee, AIR
2005 SC 4313. The Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of
fraud with reference to the caste or tribe certificates obtained by the

105

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

persons claiming to be the member of such caste or tribe held that

when a person who is not a member of schedule caste or schedule tribe
obtains a false certificate with a view to gain undue advantage of
which he or she was not otherwise entitled to would amount to
commission of fraud. Fraudulent acts are not encouraged by the
Courts. The constitution does not postulate conferment of any special
benefit on those who do not belong to the category of SC/ST people for
whom the provision was made.

215. This Court also held that merely because no case of any fraud
being played in obtaining the caste certificate is made out, that by itself
would not be sufficient to contend that the consequences specified
under Section 10 of the said Act would not follow even after
invalidation of the caste claim. In this case, the respondent no.3 had
intentionally made a false claim for the schedule caste and after
obtaining such false caste certificate got it validated fraudulently from
the Caste Scrutiny Committee and continued to avail all such benefits
fraudulently. The principles laid down by this Court in the said
judgment in case of Nutan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal (supra) applies
to the facts of this case.

216. In our view, since the respondent no.3 has obtained the caste
certificate fraudulently and got the said caste certificate validated
fraudulently from Caste Scrutiny Committee by producing fabricated
and fraudulent documents, such caste certificate is cancelled and stands
confiscated. It is needless to observe that all the consequences in law
provided upon cancellation of such fraudulently obtained caste
certificate and caste validity certificate shall follow.

106

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

217. Before we part with the judgment, we are constraint to put a

word or two as to the abysmal functioning of the Scrutiny Committee
which is more or less akin to and trappings of judicial functioning and
therefore requires a high degree of sensible approach with all
circumspection.

218. We would also like to remind the Caste Scrutiny Committee that
since it is endowed with the power of validating or otherwise of the
Caste Certificate, a solemn duty is cast on it to be more cautions and
careful and must considerate all attending circumstances so as to
enable it to validate or otherwise the Caste Certificate by all judicial
means.

219. In the present case we do not find any such judicious approach
on its part to say the least and rather seems to be swayed away by
extenuating circumstances, keeping aside the application of judicious
mind. We in all seriousness, hope that hereinafter, the Scrutiny
Committee shall take all caution and guarded approach before
validating the Caste Certificate.

220. We, therefore, pass the following order :-

(a) Impugned order dated 3rd November, 2017 passed by the

respondent no.2 committee validating caste claim of the
respondent no.3 as ‘Mochi’ Schedule Caste is quashed and
set aside. The caste certificate obtained by the respondent
no.3, which is validated by order dated 3rd November, 2017
is cancelled and confiscated.

107

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::

 WWW.LIVELAW.IN

spb/vai/ppn/bdp wp3370-18-2675-9426-20.doc

(b) It is declared that all consequences in law, which may

occur on cancellation and confiscation of the fraudulently
obtained caste certificate by the respondent no.3 would
follow.

(c) Respondent no.3 is directed to surrender the caste

certificate validated by order dated 3rd November, 2017 to
the respondent no.2 committee within six weeks from
today.

(d) Rule is made absolute in Writ Petition Nos. 3370 of 2018

and 2675 of 2019 in aforesaid terms.

(e) Writ Petition (L) No. 9426 of 2020 is dismissed. Rule is

discharged.

(f) Respondent no.3 is directed to pay cost of Rs.2,00,000/-

(Rupees Two lakhs only) to the Maharashtra Legal
Services Authority within two weeks from today.

(g) Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this judgment.

(h) The Associate of this Court is directed to handover the

original records of the proceedings before the respondent
no.2 committee produced before this Court to the learned
A.G.P.

[V.G.BISHT, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]

108

::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2021 13:37:37 :::