Can Caste Scrutiny Committee Recall Orders Obtained By Fraud?: Bombay High Court Refers Issue To Larger Bench
|A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee recalling its earlier order of granting validity certificates to the tribe claims.
The Bombay High Court referred the question of whether the Caste Scrutiny Committee has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts to a larger bench.
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of the Scrutiny Committee recalling its earlier order of granting validity certificates to the tribe claims of the Petitioners on the ground that such orders were obtained by the Petitioners on the basis of suppressions and misrepresentations.
The Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y G Khobragade observed, “It is also relevant to note 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, as compared to this Court exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The purity of the process, once found to be polluted has to be dealt with and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration that need to be authoritatively settled by a larger bench of this Court.”
Case Brief
The Petitioners challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee recalling its earlier order of granting validity certificates to the tribe claims of the Petitioners on the ground that such orders were obtained by the petitioners on the basis of suppressions and misrepresentations.
It was contended that since the Scrutiny Committee is a creature of a statute i.e. the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000, it does not have the power of review.
It was also contended by the Petitioner that even suo moto notices for recalling of earlier orders have been stayed by this Court on the basis of the said position of law.
While the State contended that since fraud vitiates everything, despite absence of power in the Scrutiny Committee to review its own orders, it would still not denude the Scrutiny Committee of its power of revisiting an order which is obtained on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation.
Court’s Analysis
The Court opined that there are important questions of law that arise for consideration.
The Court noted that different approaches had been adopted by the various division benches on the question as to whether the Scrutiny Committee can at all exercise power to recall its own earlier orders on the limited ground that such orders were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation.
“We find that the judgments relied upon by the learned AGPs demonstrate that while it is acknowledged by the other benches of equal strength of this Court that the Scrutiny Committee, being a creation of the Act of 2000, which does not provide for a power of review, cannot exercise such power of review and yet it has been held that when fraud or misrepresentation is demonstrated the Scrutiny Committee can recall its orders”, the Court said.
The Court was of the view that 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.
Following question of law were framed by the Court, among others, for the consideration of larger bench:
Whether the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Act of 2000, has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ?
ii. Being a creature of the statute i.e. the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee does not have power of substantive review due to absence of any such provision under the said statute, but does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to recall its own order on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts ?
iii. If the Scrutiny Committee does have such limited power of recalling its order on the aforesaid grounds, what are the contours of the same and what safeguards must be applied so that a situation of rampant recalling of orders is avoided?
Accordingly, the case was referred to the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for decision by a larger bench on the questions formulated.
Cause Title: Santosh Anil Kolhe V. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation:2025:BHC-AUG:20600-DB )
Click here to read/download Order