Case Note & Summary
The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the Scrutiny Committee's order confiscating the Petitioner's caste validity certificate. The Petitioner, certified as 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste, had her validity certificate issued in 2017 after court directions, but it was later cancelled in 2018 for relying on maternal lineage documents. The Court held that the Committee lacks power to review its own orders and that caste determination in inter-caste marriages is not rigidly based on paternal lineage, as per Supreme Court precedent. The impugned order was quashed, and the validity certificate was restored.
Headnote
The Petitioner challenged an order dated 30.11.2018 by the Respondent No.1 – Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, which confiscated her caste validity certificate -- The Petitioner, born on 15.9.1997, was issued a caste certificate on 03.11.2011 certifying her as 'Mahar' Scheduled Caste -- After a writ petition, the High Court directed re-submission of her claim, leading to a validity certificate on 24.10.2017 -- The Committee later seized and cancelled this certificate, citing reliance on maternal side documents instead of paternal side -- The Petitioner argued the Committee had no power to review its own orders and the approach was contrary to law -- The Respondents contended the action was valid under the Act of 2000 and Rules, as documents were from the maternal side -- The High Court held the Committee lacked power to review, and caste determination in inter-caste marriages is not inflexibly based on paternal lineage, quashing the impugned order -- The judgment references Rule 16 of the 2012 Rules and Supreme Court case Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika Vs. State of Gujarat (2012) 3 SCC 400
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the Scrutiny Committee had the authority to confiscate a caste validity certificate issued earlier and whether the rejection based solely on maternal lineage documents was legally tenable
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 30.11.2018, and restored the validity certificate issued on 24.10.2017
2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 38
Writ Petition No.4997 of 2023
Smt. M.S. Jawalkar J. , Nandesh S. Deshpande J.
Mr. Ananta Ramteke, Mrs. H.S. Dhande
Miss. Gayatri D/o. Shakuntala Gaikwad
The President/Member Secretary, The District Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur, Deputy Collector, Nagpur
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
Nature of Litigation: Writ Petition challenging administrative order confiscating caste validity certificate
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 30.11.2018 by Scrutiny Committee and restoration of validity certificate
Filing Reason
Scrutiny Committee cancelled validity certificate issued earlier, citing reliance on maternal side documents
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.4312/2017 disposed on 18.9.2017 with directions to re-submit caste claim, leading to validity certificate on 24.10.2017
Issues
Whether the Scrutiny Committee had power to review and confiscate its own validity certificate order
Whether rejection of caste claim based solely on maternal lineage documents was legally valid
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued Committee lacks power to review own orders and approach was erroneous
Respondents argued action was valid under Act and Rules as documents were from maternal side
Ratio Decidendi
The Scrutiny Committee lacks inherent power to review its own orders, and caste determination in inter-caste marriages is not inflexibly based on paternal lineage, as per Supreme Court precedent in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika case
Judgment Excerpts
The only reason which has weighed with the Scrutiny Committee while confiscating the validity already issued to her is that the documents which were submitted in support of her claim, pertained to the maternal side and not of the paternal side
There is no power vested in the Committee for review of its own orders and, therefore, the action of confiscation is de hors the provisions of law
A careful examination of the three cases together with some other decisions of this Court would clearly show that what was said in Valsamma in a certain context has been rather mechanically and inappropriately extended and applied to different other fact situations
Procedural History
Caste certificate issued on 03.11.2011 -- Claim submitted for validation on 23.10.2015 -- Returned on 17.9.2016 -- Writ Petition No.4312/2017 filed and disposed on 18.9.2017 with directions -- Validity certificate issued on 24.10.2017 -- Certificate seized on 30.11.2017 and cancelled on 30.11.2018 -- Informed of cancellation on 16.12.2022 -- Writ Petition No.4997/2023 filed and decided on 02.02.2026
Premium Content
The Indexes are only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now
to access critical case indexes
