Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y. G. Khobragade has referred significant legal questions to a larger bench concerning the authority of the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 to recall its own orders.

The court directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench, noting conflicting decisions among division benches on whether such committees, in absence of express statutory review power, can revisit caste validity certificates obtained by alleged fraud, misrepresentation, or suppression of material facts. The bench formulated multiple questions, including whether inherent powers exist for recall in such situations, what safeguards may be necessary to prevent abuse, and whether prior judgments restricting such powers require reconsideration.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Telangana Speaker To Decide On Disqualification Of BRS MLAs Who Defected To INC Within 3 Months | Quashes High Court Order And Warns Against Delay Tactics By Legislators

The petitions before the court challenged orders dated 15.05.2025 by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Kinvat, which had cancelled earlier validity certificates of the petitioners and invalidated their claims. The committee acted on the ground that the certificates were obtained through suppression and misrepresentation. The petitioners contended that the committee, being a statutory body under the Act of 2000, lacked any power of review, and therefore could not recall its own orders. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje v. State of Maharashtra (2023 63 OnLine Bom 1013), which held that the Scrutiny Committee cannot review its own orders, even in cases of alleged fraud or misrepresentation, as such power is not conferred by the statute. The petitioners further cited Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra (2024 (7) ALL MR 45) and Anil Shivram Bandawar v. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee (2021 (5) Mh.L.J. 345) in support.

The learned AGPs representing the State argued that fraud vitiates all acts, and even without explicit statutory review power, the Scrutiny Committee can revisit orders obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Reliance was placed on Rajeshwar Baburao Bone v. State of Maharashtra ((2015) 14 SCC 497), where the Supreme Court upheld the committee's recall of a validity certificate obtained by fraud, as well as on other High Court decisions such as Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin v. State of Maharashtra, Jyoti Sheshrao Mupde v. State of Maharashtra, Sangita Sharad Kolse v. State of Maharashtra, Vishnu Rajaram Thakar v. State of Maharashtra, and Farha Ashfaqali Shaha v. Member Secretary, Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.

The court noted the divergence in approaches: some benches holding that the absence of statutory review power bars any recall, even for fraud, while others held that inherent powers allow recall to maintain integrity of the process. The bench observed that granting blanket recall power risks indiscriminate use, destabilising validity claims, yet denying recall entirely could allow fraudulent certificates to stand. Given this apparent conflict, the matter required authoritative resolution by a larger bench.

The bench recorded: "We are of the opinion that in the light of the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the rival parties, important questions of law arise for consideration. There appears to be an apparent cleavage in the approach 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.”

Referring to Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje, the court quoted: “The legislature has categorically avoided conferring any powers of review on the Caste Scrutiny Committee… even in case of fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts.” It also noted that this judgment stated: “The only course open… is to approach the High Court… It is in such proceedings… the Court would be required to apply its mind as to whether the allegations of fraud… are of such nature that the decision… was vitiated.”

Conversely, in Shakila Begum Faiyyazuddin, it was held: “If a candidate practices fraud upon the Scrutiny Committee… the Scrutiny Committee is not denuded of its power to correct its own mistake and revisit its order… A person guilty of fraud cannot claim any right derived… from an order obtained by fraud.” This position was confirmed by the Supreme Court in dismissal of the SLP.

Similarly, Sangita Sharad Kolse stated: “According to us the respondent Scrutiny Committee was clothed with the inherent jurisdiction of exercise of powers of review… on grounds of fraud cannot be said to be… without jurisdiction.” Other cited decisions reflected comparable reasoning, with distinctions drawn on facts.

The bench acknowledged the concerns in Bharat Nagu Garud regarding unrestricted reopening of concluded cases, yet stated: “That in itself cannot be the basis to hold that in no circumstances can the Scrutiny Committee exercise its inherent power… when noticed subsequently… cannot become the basis of reopening such cases.” It added that the committee is “better equipped to examine the aspects of fraud, fabrication and misrepresentation… as compared to this Court exercising writ jurisdiction.”

The court directed: “We take recourse to Rule 9(A) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to formulate questions to be answered by a larger bench… The papers pertaining to these cases be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for decision by a larger bench on the questions formulated herein above.” The questions referred are:

1. “Whether the Scrutiny Committee… has the power to recall its order on the ground that it is vitiated by fraud, misrepresentation or suppression of material facts?

2. Being a creature of the statute… does it denude the Scrutiny Committee of its inherent power to recall… on the ground of fraud…?

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh HC High Court Acquits Murder Accused Over Botched Probe | Slams Police For Planting Witness, Orders DGP To Act Against Fabricated Evidence

3. If… such limited power… what are the contours… and what safeguards must be applied…?

4. Whether such a safeguard can include necessity of seeking leave of the High Court…?

5. Whether the judgments… in… Rakesh Bhimashankar Umbarje… and Bharat Nagu Garud… need to be revisited…?”

The matter was ordered to be placed before the Chief Justice accordingly.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Pratap V. Jadhavar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for Applicant; Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP; Ms. Saie S. Joshi, AGP for State

Case Title: Santosh Anil Kolhe & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AUG:20600-DB

Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 8316, 8318, 8328, 8337 of 2025

Bench: Justice Manish Pitale, Justice Y. G. Khobragade