The Bombay High Court has mentioned a large bench whether caste investigation committees under the Maharashtra Caste Certificate Act, 2000, can miss their own orders if caste validity certificates were obtained through fraud, misinformation or suppression of physical facts.
The referral was built on August 4, 2025 by a Division Bench of Manish Pigale and YG Khobragade in the Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court. The court has santash Anil Kolhe, Sham Anil Kolhe, Sharad Arunrao Kolhe, and Balaji Arunarao Kola, and Balaji Arunrao Cola, Kinwat-based Scheduled Tribes Certificate Certificate Certificate Certificate Certificate Certificate, Headquarters of Headquarters, Headquarters is in Chhatrapati Sambajinagar.
The committee canceled its certificates on May 15, 2025, which cited the fraud and repression of relevant facts.
Advocate Pratap V. The petitioners represented by Jadhavar argued that the investigation committees do not have a legal right to review or remember their decisions. He used to rely on decisions like Rakesh Bhimshankar Umbarje vs Maharashtra State and Bharat Nagu Garuda vs Maharashtra State, where the High Court had admitted that once a validity certificate is issued, the committee becomes a functional officer and can differentiate only under the High Court Article 226.
Additional government petitions Sp Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi argued that the investigation committees should maintain the power to remember the certificates received by fraud, even if such power is not clearly provided in the 2000 Act. He cited decisions including Rajeshwar Baburao Bone, where the High Court and the Supreme Court upheld the decision of a committee to cancel a fraudulent certificate. The state said that fraud vitates every legal work and cannot be protected by procedural boundaries.
After listening to the argument, the bench said that various benches of the High Court have taken conflicting views on the issue and saw that excessive use of recall powers can destabilize the inhabited rights, stopping the investigation committees by correcting fake results will reduce the integrity of the verification process.
Noted that investigation committees have semi-judicial powers and are better deployed than the writ court to assess factual fraud in caste claims.
“But, that in itself it may not be that under any circumstances, the committee investigating cannot use the inherent power to remember its earlier order, which has been obtained on the basis of fraud, misunderstanding or suppression of physical facts. After that, such cases cannot be reopening,” the court order said.
It is also relevant to note that the inquiry committee is better equipped to investigate aspects of fraud, construction and wrong bayani as it has some powers for a civil court people, as compared to this court, as compared to this court, Rit Jurisdiction has been used under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The purity of this process is found once to be polluted and therefore, we find that important questions arise for consideration, which needs to be officially settled by a large bench of this court, the bench observed.
“Therefore, we resort to the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, Rule 9 (A) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, to prepare questions to answer the questions to answer by a large bench in the light of clear struggle in the wishes of various divisions of this court.”
The court has asked five questions:
(i) Does the inquiry committee constituted under the Act of 2000 have the power to remember its order on the grounds that it is distracted by fraud, misunderstanding or suppression of physical facts?
(ii) Being a creature of law, that is, the Act of 2000, the Scrutiny Committee does not have the power to review the original review due to the absence of any such provision under the said law, but is it to remember its own order on the basis of fraud to the inquiry committee of its inherent power, wrongly or to remember the repression of physical facts?
(iii) If the inquiry committee has such a limited power to remember its order on the aforesaid basis, then what are the shapes of the same and whether security measures should be implemented so that the position of bringing back the orders can be avoided?
(iv) Can such security involve the need to leave the High Court, in Section 7 (2) of the 2000 Act in the light of the stipend?
(v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench of this court in the cases of Rakesh Bhimshankar Umbarje vs. Maharashtra State (Supra) and India Nagu Garuda vs. The state of Maharashtra (Supra), needs to be considered again to the limited limit mentioned above?
The case has been placed before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court to create a proper large back to decide the issue.
Published – 07 August, 2025 06:48 AM IST