Fresh Vigilance Inquiry to Reopen Caste Validity Certificate Without Reasons Is Not Maintainable
Judgment dated 5.11.2026 of the High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, in Writ Petition No.13353 of 2023 of Samreen Begum Shabbir Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
The petitioner claims to belong to ‘Chhaparband’ Vimukta Jati. The SDO, Parbhani, had issued a caste certificate on 18th March 2017. On 24th August 2017, the Scrutiny Committee at Parbhani validated the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned order and upon considering the evidence of the year 1940 pertaining to the marriage of grandfather of the petitioner.
the petitioner contested the election to the post of Councillor, Municipal Council, Parbhani and defeated respondent No. 3. The husband of Respondent No. 3, a defeated candidate, made an application dated 27.07.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) relating to the verification proceedings of the petitioner’s caste certificate. However, the Committee refused to provide the same on the ground of misuse of the document.
on 16th January 2018, the husband of Respondent No. 3 filed a complaint with the Scrutiny Committee, praying for cancellation of the caste certificate on the ground of alleged corruption against the members of the Scrutiny Committee. He also threatened to go on fast unto death if the validity certificate of the petitioner is not cancelled. On account of the above pressure, the Committee directed a vigilance inquiry.
Though it is argued by the petitioner that the committee had no power to reopen the case, however, she has participated in the re-opened matter. Second thing that this Court had remanded the matter by passing order in Writ Petition No. 2087/2020 filed by respondent No. 3. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot raise objection about power of the committee to reopen the proceeding.
- T
- All these judgments are about the powers of review in absence of specific provision and conferring power of review upon the authority. However, presently is the case where this Court has directed to re-open the case and in that view all these judgments will have no application to the present case.
- Considering all above, this Court finds that the committee was wrong in directing the fresh vigilance without recording the reasons as to why the first vigilance cell’s report in the earlier inquiry cannot be relied upon. Considering overall, this Court finds that the committee has committed a wrong in discarding the evidence which was already considered and relied upon i.e. the marriage certificate of 1940. Secondly, the committee has erred in relying upon the vigilance cell’s report wherein, the statements of totally stranger persons are recorded who are from different localities and different religion. It is not shown that the said persons had the knowledge about the customs, usages and traditions of the caste/community of the petitioner.
- Considering all above, this Court finds that the committee was wrong in directing the fresh vigilance without recording the reasons as to why the first vigilance cell’s report in the earlier inquiry cannot be relied upon. Considering overall, this Court finds that the committee has committed a wrong in discarding the evidence which was already considered and relied upon i.e. the marriage certificate of 1940. Secondly, the committee has erred in relying upon the vigilance cell’s report wherein, the statements of totally stranger persons are recorded who are from different localities and different religion. It is not shown that the said persons had the knowledge about the customs, usages and traditions of the caste/community of the petitioner.
