Can caste scrutiny committee recall orders obtained by fraud? Bombay High Court larger bench to decide

A three-judge Bench of the Bombay High Court will decide whether the caste scrutiny committee constituted under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. [Santosh Anil Kolhe and Ors v State of Maharashtra].

A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and YG Khobragade at Aurangabad referred the matter to a larger bench and also framed five issues to be decided by the larger bench.

These questions include whether the absence of express review powers under the 2000 Act stops the committee from using any inherent power to recall its orders in cases of fraud.

The Court also asked what safeguards should apply if such power exists and whether the committee must first obtain permission from the High Court under Section 7(2) of the Act.

It further raised the issue of whether earlier rulings in Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje and Bharat Nagu Garud need to be reconsidered.

The petitions filed by three men from Nanded challenged the scrutiny committee’s orders dated May 15 which cancelled their earlier caste validity certificates on the ground that these were obtained through suppression and misrepresentation.

The petitioners argued that the scrutiny committee has no power to review or recall its orders even in cases of alleged fraud since the Act of 2000 does not confer any such power.

They relied on the judgments in Umbarje and Garud, wherein the High Court held that once a validity certificate is granted, the committee becomes functus officio (having performed its duty) and only the High Court under Article 226 can interfere.

The State, however, contended that since fraud vitiates everything, the committee can withdraw certificates obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.

Finding an “apparent cleavage” in the approach adopted by different benches, the Court noted that while Umbarje and Garud strongly restricted the committee’s jurisdiction, other judgments recognized its inherent power to recall fraudulent orders.

“It cannot be countenanced that orders upholding tribe claims and grant of validity certificates obtained on falsehoods, fabrications, fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts, when noticed subsequently, cannot become the basis of reopening such cases,” the Court observed.

It further reasoned that the scrutiny committee is “better equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation as it has some powers akin to those of a civil court” compared to the High Court exercising writ jurisdiction.

The Bench directed that the case papers be placed before the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench to settle the conflicting views.

Advocates Pratap Jadhavar and R D Biradar appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Government Pleaders SP Sonpawale and Saie S Joshi appeared for the State.

[Read Order]