The Bombay High Court referred to a larger bench to the question of whether the CASTE CASTE CASTE CASTE CASTA CASTA CASTA CASTERS CHEP can remember their own orders if the validity certificate has been obtained by fraud, distortion or suppressing significant facts.
Recommended was made by the division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Yg Khobragade on the Aurangabad bench on Bombay High Court 4. The validity of the Kasta Committee for checking the TRIBE Certificate certificate based in Kinwat based in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
The Committee canceled its certificate on May 15, 2025, referring to fraud and suppressing the relevant facts.
The petitioners, represented by the attorney of Pratap V. Jadhavar, claimed that the committees for inspection do not have a legal authority to review or remember their decisions. They relied on judgments such as Rrakesh Bhimashankar umbarje v. State of Maharashtra and Bharat Nagu Garud v. State of Maharashtra, where the High Court ruled that once it was issued, it would become a committee.
Other government prosecutors Sonpawale and Saie S. Joshi claimed that the control committees must maintain the power to trigger a certificate acquired by fraud, although such power is not explicitly stipulated in the 2000 Act. The state claimed that fraud would make every legal act more difficult and cannot be protected by procedural restrictions.
After hearing the argument, the bench noted that the various benches of the High Court took contrary views on the matter and noted that while the excessive use of memories could destabilize the rights, which will prevent the committees to control fraudulent results would undermine the integrity of the validation process.
He noted that the control committees have quasi-fed powers and are better placed than the courts to assess the factual fraud in caste demands.
“But this in itself cannot be the basis of assuming that the Committee for Control cannot perform its own power to remember its earlier order, which was obtained on the basis of fraud, distortion or suppression of material facts. That is that they are interested, interested, which is interested, which is interested, which is interested, which is a passionate, which is interest, which is credited, which is interested, which is entitled that it is interested.
It is also important to note that the control committee is better equipped to explore aspects of fraud, production and distortion, because it has some powers of similar powers of the Civic Court compared to this court, which performs jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The cleanliness of the process, when it was found to be polluted, must be solved, and therefore we find that important questions are arisen, which must be authoritatively resolved by a larger bench of this court, the bench noted.
“That is why we are proceeding to rule 9 (a) of the Mumbai High Court, 1960, to the formulation of questions that answer the larger bench in the light of apparent conflict in the above -mentioned views of the various benches of the division of this court.”
The court asked five questions:
(i) Whether the Committee for Control is established under the Act of 2000, does the power to recall its order because it is filled with fraud, distortion or suppressing material facts?
(ii) Since it is a creation of status, ie the 2000 control committee, has no power to review because of the absence of such a provision according to that status, but does the Audit Committee refuse to recall its own order for fraud, distortion or suppress material facts?
(iii) If the Committee for Control has such limited power to recall its command for the above reasons, what are their outlines and what warranties must be used to avoid the situation of uncontrollable commands?
Iv) Whether such a warranty may include the need for the Supreme Court’s holiday, with regard to the provisions in section 7 (2) of the Act of 2000?
(v) Whether the judgments of the divisional benches of this court in the cases of Rrakesh Bhimashankar umbarje vs. Status Maharashtra (above) and Bharat Nagu Garud vs. Maharashtra (above), is it necessary to rework it in the above limited extent?
This matter was now the chairman before the main judge of the High Court in Mumbai for creating a suitable larger bench to decide on this matter.
Published – August 2025 06:48
