The Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Mangesh S. Patil, addressed six writ petitions from blood relatives challenging the confiscation and cancellation of their Thakur scheduled tribe certificates by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee. The Court decided to handle all cases jointly due to shared genealogy and evidence. The committee had previously invalidated their certificates, citing potential fraud. The Court emphasized that fraud allegations require strict proof, which the committee failed to demonstrate. Consequently, the Court quashed the committee’s orders and restored the petitioners' tribe certificates.

Introduction

• Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. AGP waives service.
• Hearing both sides finally at the stage of admission.
• Six writ petitions clubbed for joint trial as petitioners are paternal blood relatives.
• Petitioners challenge the confiscation and cancellation of their Thakur scheduled tribe certificates by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee.

Background

1. Petitioner Sambhaji Dangal Wagh:

   • First to receive a certificate of validity.
   • His son, Saniket, received a validity certificate directed by the Court, subject to future committee decisions.

2. Petitioner Kunal Bhagwan Wagh:

   • First-degree cousin of Saniket.
   • Initially received a certificate of validity, later recalled by the committee citing fraud.

3. Other Petitioners (Rohit, Varsha, Yuvraj, Ritesh):

   • Certificates of validity recalled based on similar reasons.

4. Committee's Revalidation and Fraud Allegations:

   • Notices issued to validity holders (Sambhaji, Vijay, Smita).
   • Certificates recalled citing suppression of contradictory records.

Key Issues and Court's Findings

5. Power of Scrutiny Committee:

   • Coordinate division benches of the Court held that the committee cannot recall certificates without proof of fraud.
   • Fraud allegations must be strictly proven.

6. Committee’s Evidence and Allegations:

   • The committee relied on contradictory entries without demonstrating petitioners' knowledge or intentional suppression.
   • Older, favorable records (e.g., 1922 entry of Brijlal Mahadu as 'Thakur') were not considered by the committee.

7. Fraud Allegations:

   • Allegations of fraud require proof of intentional suppression.
   • Committee failed to prove petitioners' knowledge of contradictory records.

Detailed Analysis

8. Petitioner Kunal’s Case:

   • Independent vigilance enquiry conducted.
   • Older records favored Kunal's claim, outweighing subsequent contradictory entries.
   • No demonstration of fraud by Kunal in obtaining his certificate.

9. Other Petitioners’ Cases:

   • Similar failures by the committee to prove intentional suppression or fraud.
   • Committee referred to records of individuals not related by blood on the paternal side.

Conclusion

10. Fraud Allegations Insufficient:
    • Committee's actions based on perceptions rather than strict proof of fraud.
    • Impugned orders did not demonstrate intentional suppression of material facts.

Court's Decision

11. Quashing Impugned Orders:
    • Committee lacked jurisdiction and power to recall certificates without proving fraud.
    • All impugned judgments and orders were quashed and set aside.
    • Rule made absolute, allowing all petitions.