Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.

The petitioner claims to belong to Sutar caste which is recognized as other backward class (for convenience "OBC") in the State of Maharashtra. Respondent 1 is the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department. Respondent 2 is the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee (for convenience, "the Scrutiny Committee") constituted under the provisions of section 6 of the Maharashtra Act No.XXIII of 2001 (for short, "the said Act"). Respondent 3 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Respondent No.4 is the State Election Commissioner. Respondent 5 is the Authority, who has issued caste certificate to the petitioner. Respondent 6 is the complainant.

2.In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 4/5/2007 passed by the Scrutiny Committee invalidating his caste certificate issued by respondent 5.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj, which includes Panchkalsi, Sutar socially, anthropologically and ethnologically. Respondent 1 has listed Sutar caste which is a sub-caste of Panchkalsi at serial no.174 whereas, caste Panchkalsi has been listed differently. According to the petitioner, on this basis, the petitioner and his children were initially granted caste certificates by respondent 5 stating that they belong to Panchkalsi caste, which is recognized as OBC.

4.According to the petitioner, he moved the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Panchkalsi, OBC on 7/9/2006. He, thereafter, realized that Panchkalsi and Sutar castes belong to same stock historically, anthropologically and ethnologically. The petitioner, therefore, surrendered his caste certificate dated 21/6/2006 to respondent 5 on 26/12/2006 and made a fresh application for grant of caste certificate stating that he belongs to Sutar caste. Respondent 5 issued caste certificate to the petitioner certifying that he belongs to Sutar caste on 28/12/2006. According to the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee, after verifying the documents annexed to his application, acknowledged its receipt. On the basis of the said acknowledgment of the Scrutiny Committee, the petitioner filed his nomination form from Ward No.11, which was reserved for backward class to the membership of respondent 3-Corporation on 15/1/2007. The scrutiny of the nomination papers was held on 17/1/2007. The Returning Officer of respondent 3-Corporation accepted nomination form of the petitioner. The election was held on 1/2/2007 and the results were declared on 2/2/2007. The petitioner was declared elected.

5.Respondent 6 objected to the petitioners caste validity certificate. He filed an application before the Scrutiny Committee principally on the ground that the petitioner belongs to Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj, which does not come under the OBC category and, as such, he was not entitled to the certificate declaring him to be Sutar. The said application was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his affidavit in reply opposing the said application. The Scrutiny Committee after perusing the application and the affidavit in reply filed by the petitioner along with compilation of documents produced by the petitioner, called for the vigilance report. The concerned Inspector, after investigation, submitted the vigilance report to the Scrutiny Committee in which, he had recorded a conclusion that the petitioner belongs to Sutar caste. Respondent 6 objected to the report of the vigilance cell. By the impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioners caste validity certificate acknowledging his status as Sutar. The Scrutiny Committee also invalidated the petitioners claim to Panchkalsi caste. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this court.

6. We have heard Mr. Jahagirdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that the Scrutiny Committee erred in invalidating the petitioners caste claim. He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee failed to note that the Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj is a community. It is a broad nomenclature which includes Panchkalsi and Sutar castes. He submitted that in GR dated 13/10/1967 issued by the Government of Maharashtra notifying the list of OBC, the caste Sutar is shown at serial no.174. He submitted that by GR dated 1/1/2001, the Government of Maharashtra amended the list of OBC and added caste Panchkalsi in caste Mali, which is at serial no.182. Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that the petitioner had produced credible evidence to establish that he belongs to Sutar caste. He had submitted school leaving certificate of his sister late Shaila Chintaman Chogle, school leaving certificate of his cousin Ms. Archana Gopal Chogle and school leaving certificate of his cousin Mr. Mandar Ratnakar Chogle, which state that they belong to Sutar caste. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner had produced a copy of the Gazette issued by the State Government which contains history of Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj. In the said history, a reference is made to Panchkalsi. It also mentions the caste Sutar as being part of Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj. Learned counsel pointed out that this important piece of evidence has not been considered by the Scrutiny Committee. Merely because the petitioner surrendered his first caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste and obtained another caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Sutar caste, his case cannot be thrown overboard. He submitted that in fact, all the relevant documents which were produced by the petitioner have been merely mentioned in the impugned order. No reasons are stated as to why they were not accepted by the Scrutiny Committee.

7.Mr. Jahagirdar further submitted that the vigilance officer had recorded the statements of the petitioners cousin Hemant Chogle, his neighbour Kishore J. Gujjar and another cousin of the petitioner viz. Gopal V. Chogle. After considering all the documents and the statements recorded by him and after considering other relevant aspects, the vigilance officer had submitted a report stating that the petitioner belongs to Sutar caste. Mr. Jahagirdar contended that the vigilance report is a very important document and should ordinarily be accepted. He submitted that the vigilance officers report is of utmost importance and has been held to be so in Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors., 1994 (6) SCC 241 [LQ/SC/1994/798] . On the basis of the said judgment and the credible evidence submitted by the petitioner, the Scrutiny Committee should have validated the petitioners claim. He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee cannot lightly brush aside the said report and dispose of the caste claim of the candidate. In case the Scrutiny Committee does not agree with the Vigilance Cell report, the Scrutiny Committee has to follow the procedure prescribed in paragraph 13(6) and (7) of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maduri Patils case (supra). He submitted that the Scrutiny Committee should have issued a show cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the petitioner. After receipt of the notice, if the petitioner wanted an opportunity of hearing, the Scrutiny Committee should have convened a meeting of the Committee and chairperson of the Committee should have given an opportunity to the petitioner to adduce all the evidence in support of his claim. It is after following the entire procedure that the Scrutiny Committee has to pass appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof. Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that this procedure is a mandatory procedure. It is not followed by the Scrutiny Committee and, therefore, the impugned order must be set aside.

8.Mr. Jahagirdar further submitted that the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of his case ought to have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee in their proper perspective. If the Scrutiny Committee wanted to reject the said documents, it should have assigned reasons for the same. Merely mentioning the said documents in the order is not sufficient. The order must reflect application of mind of the authority to those documents. In this connection, Mr. Jahagirdar relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 71 [LQ/SC/1986/398] and Cyril Lasrado (dead) by LRs & Ors. v. Juliana Maria Lasrado & Anr., 2004 (7) SCC 431 [LQ/SC/2004/867] . Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that in the circumstances, it is necessary to remand the case to the Scrutiny Committee with a direction to assign reasons for not accepting the documents. Mr. Jahagirdar also relied on two unreported judgments of the Division Bench of this court (D.K. Deshmukh & V.M. Kanade, JJ) in Balasaheb Ramdas Chandere v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 27/2/2008 in Writ Petition No.6192 of 2007 and in Chandrakant Nivrutti Bathe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. decided on 5/3/2008 in Writ Petition No.6188 of 2007.

9.Mr. Jahagirdar submitted that the petitioners membership has been suspended but the petitioner is concerned with the larger issue. The order invalidating his Sutar caste claim will have a wider repercussion on the lives of the members of his family. He submitted that, therefore, the petitioners case requires to be handled properly and not in a slipshod manner in which the Scrutiny Committee has handled it. Mr. Jehagirdar concluded by saying that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee with direction to dispose it of in accordance with law.

10.On the other hand, Mr. Tayshetye, learned counsel appearing for respondent 6 submitted that the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence from this court. His conduct is totally fraudulent. He obtained caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste. He surrendered it and within two days he got another certificate certifying that he belongs to Sutar caste. Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj does not fall in the category of OBC. He submitted that Sutar caste was added in the OBC category by GR dated 13/10/1967 and Panchkalsi caste was added in the Mali (OBC category) by GR dated 1/1/2001. Having realized that the petitioner will not be able to substantiate his claim that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste, the petitioner surrendered that certificate and within two days, he managed to get a certificate certifying that he belongs to Sutar caste. Mr. Tayshetye submitted that if the petitioner comes with a case that he belongs to a particular OBC category, which falls in a particular entry of the OBC list notified by the GR, he will have to establish that he belongs to that OBC caste even though Sutar and Panchkalsi may both fall in OBC category. It is not open to this court to enter into an inquiry and come to a conclusion that Panchkalsi and Sutar castes both fall in OBC category and, therefore, even if the claim of the petitioner that he belongs to Sutar caste is not substantiated, he could be considered as belonging to Panchkalsi caste and his certificate can be validated. He submitted that such a scrutiny or inquiry is prohibited and this is made amply clear by the Supreme Court in its judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Milind & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC 4 [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] ">2001 (1) SCC 4 [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] [LQ/SC/2000/1837 ;] .

Mr. Tayshetye further contended that respondent 5-Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District, Borivli, could not have revoked or reviewed his earlier order issuing certificate to the petitioner that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste. Respondent 5 has no powers of review. Respondent 5 cannot even cancel his earlier order. He submitted that respondent 5s first order issuing certificate that the petitioner belongs to Panchkalsi caste is an appealable order. He submitted that being a quasi judicial authority, respondent 5 has no inherent power to revoke his own order. Learned counsel pointed out that by the impugned order, the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated both the certificates of the petitioner i.e. certificate certifying that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste and certificate certifying that he belongs to Sutar caste. In the petition, the petitioner has sought direction to the Committee to issue caste validity certificate in favour of the petitioner in respect of caste certificate dated 28/12/2006 issued by respondent 5 stating that the petitioner belongs to Sutar caste. He submitted that therefore, challenge is to the second caste certificate. Cancellation of first caste certificate has attained finality. Mr. Tayshetye further submitted that the conduct of the petitioner in surrendering his caste certificate, is suspect. He drew our attention to the affidavit filed by the petitioner while surrendering his first caste certificate. He pointed out that no reasons are given why the petitioner wanted to surrender his caste certificate. Obviously, the petitioner wanted to get the caste certificate to the effect that he belongs to Sutar caste for election purpose because he thought that he was on better footing so far as his claim to caste Sutar is concerned.

11.Mr. Tayshetye submitted that even on merits, the petitioner has no case. He submitted that the petitioners paternal aunt -Neela Desai nee Mohini Chogle, who was a Member of the Legislative Assembly in the year 1997 was issued a caste certificate certifying that she belongs to Hindu Panchkalsi caste. His paternal aunt has also sworn affidavit dated 13/7/2004 confirming that she belongs to Hindu Panchkalsi caste. This certificate and the affidavit were suppressed by the petitioner in the vigilance inquiry. He pointed out that there is no reference to these two documents in the affidavits filed by the petitioner before the Scrutiny Committee and also in the present writ petition. Learned counsel pointed out that in the certificate issued by Mali Samaj, the petitioner is shown as belonging to Hindu Panchkalsi caste. There is no reference to Sutar caste. Learned counsel drew our attention to several documents such as certificate issued by the competent authority in favour of the petitioners daughters and sons certifying that they belong to Panchkalsi caste. He also pointed out the entry of the school register pertaining to the petitioner and his sister late Shaila. These documents show the petitioners caste as Hindu and the petitioners sisters caste as Hindu Somvanshi Kshatriya. Learned counsel submitted that all these relevant documents were suppressed by the petitioner. They were brought on record by respondent 6. This indicates that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands.

12.Learned counsel pointed out that before the competent authority, while surrendering his first certificate, the petitioner has filed affidavit dated 2/2/2006 declaring that he and his family belong to Panchkalsi caste. However, before the Scrutiny Committee, he has not produced the said evidence. He has suppressed the said evidence. He has gone against the affidavit, which he had filed. Serious note needs to be taken about this conduct of the petitioner.

13.As regards argument of Mr. Jahagirdar that the Scrutiny Committee has not followed the proper procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Maduri Patils case (supra) is concerned, Mr. Tayshetye submitted that no grievance, at all, was made before the Scrutiny Committee in this regard. The vigilance committee report was supplied to the petitioner. Objections were raised by respondent 6. That application was served on the petitioner. The petitioner filed his reply. The application was heard at length. Therefore, sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner. The requirements of paragraph 13(6) and (7) of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maduri Patils case (supra) have been complied with. It is, therefore, not necessary to remand the matter for that purpose. Learned counsel submitted that no case is made out for remand on the alleged ground that the documents supplied by the petitioner were not considered by the Scrutiny Committee. The order of the Scrutiny Committee is reasoned and it clearly indicates why the petitioners documents have not been accepted by the Scrutiny Committee. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra, 1998 (7) SCC 84 [LQ/SC/1998/809] , learned counsel submitted that after such a long period, it would be improper to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is seeking remand because he wants to tender certain more documents. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to tender those documents before the Scrutiny Committee. He cannot be allowed to produce those documents in this court nor can he be allowed to produce the said documents before the Scrutiny Committee by seeking a remand. In this connection, learned counsel relied on the judgment of this court in Kishore R. Sonkusre v. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Anr., 2000 (Supp.) Bom.CR 40. Learned counsel pointed out that it is absolutely clear that the petitioner has purposely withheld the relevant documentary evidence which was likely to adversely affect his case. That evidence must, therefore, be looked at to find out whether the vigilance report is procured or false. In this connection, he relied on the judgment of this court in Priyanka M. Jangam v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2007 (6) All.M.R. 807.

14.Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Nutan Vidarbha Shikshan Mandal v. The Presiding Officer, 2007 (2) All M.R. 60, where after considering the provisions of the said Act, this court has observed that it is absolutely necessary for the claimant to ensure that he makes a truthful claim, otherwise it is nothing but a deceit which should warrant consequences as contemplated under the statutory provisions. Mr. Tayshetye submitted that in the light of above judgments, the petition must be dismissed and action must be directed to be taken against the petitioner in accordance with law.

15.Before we proceed further, we must note certain provisions of the said Act. The said Act provides for regulation of the issuance and verification of the caste certificates to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes, Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category. Under section 3 thereof, a person belonging to any of the above categories is required to produce a caste certificate in order to claim the benefit of any reservation provided to such categories of people. Section 4 provides for issuance of caste certificate by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority may grant the application or reject it for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The caste certificate so issued is valid subject to the verification by the Scrutiny Committee. A person aggrieved by an order of rejection of an application passed by the Authority has to appeal to the Appellate Authority under section 8. Under section 8(2), the Appellate Authority has to give an opportunity of being heard to such person and then either confirm the rejection or set aside the order of the Competent Authority and direct it to issue the caste certificate.

16.Section 6 provides for verification of caste certificate by Scrutiny Committee. A person who wants to claim the benefit of any reservation as mentioned in section 3 has to make an application for the verification of such caste certificate to the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee has to then follow the necessary procedure and issue validity certificate.

17.Under section 7, the Scrutiny Committee may, suo moto, or otherwise call for the record and enquire into the correctness of the certificate obtained by a person and after giving opportunity of hearing to him, cancel the certificate. Order of the Scrutiny Committee can be challenged only in the High Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18.Section 8 places burden of proof on the person claiming to belong to any such category.

19.Under section 9, the Competent Authority, Appellate Authority and Scrutiny Committee shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit particularly in respect of summoning and enforcing attendance of a person and examine him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any documents, receiving evidence on affidavits, requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office and issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents.

20.Section 10 contains a very drastic provision. It provides for withdrawal of benefits secured by a person on the basis of false caste certificate. Under this provision, a person who produces false caste certificate is liable to be debarred from the concerned educational institution or discharged from the employment. Degrees or diplomas obtained on the basis of such certificate stand cancelled. Under sub-section (4) such a person is disqualified for being a member of any statutory body, if he has contested any election and any benefits obtained by such person shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue. Section 11 provides for offences and penalties and section 12 states that offences under the said Act are cognizable and non-bailable. Section 13 provides that a person who issues a false caste certificate can be convicted.

21.The said Act, therefore, makes it clear that application for caste certificate is made for claiming the benefit of reservation in certain walks of life. In a given case, it could be for getting any public employment or in another case it could be for getting admission into any educational institution. In the present case, the petitioner wanted to contest Municipal Corporation election which was to be held in January, 2007 from Ward No.11 on the seat reserved for OBC candidate. He had applied to the Competent Authority i.e. respondent 5 for caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Panchkalsi, OBC. That certificate was issued to him on 21/6/2006. On 26/12/2006, he surrendered it and applied for another certificate certifying that he belongs to Sutar, OBC. The Competent Authority issued another certificate on 28/12/2006 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Sutar caste. It is rather surprising how this entire exercise was conducted within two days. It is stated that the Competent Authority conducted a detailed inquiry and issued this certificate. We really wonder what inquiry can be conducted in a day. Under section 4, the Competent Authority has to satisfy itself about the genuineness of the claim and after following the prescribed procedure, it has to issue caste certificate. It is difficult to understand how within two days, the Competent Authority concluded the exercise and was satisfied that the petitioner belongs to Sutar caste when it had just a few months back issued a certificate stating that the petitioner belongs to Panchkalsi caste.

22.Apart from this, there is a basic flaw in the entire exercise. We have already noted that under section 4 of the said Act, the Competent Authority may issue the certificate or may reject the application for reasons to be recorded in writing. The said Act nowhere provides that the Competent Authority can cancel the earlier certificate and issue a fresh certificate. The said Act does not confer power on the Competent Authority to revoke its order or review its order. In fact, section 6 provides for an appeal from the order passed by the Competent Authority rejecting the application. It is only on appeal that an Appellate Authority may after giving hearing to the person concerned, confirm or reject the order or set aside the Competent Authoritys order and direct the Competent Authority to issue caste certificate. The Competent Authority by issuing fresh caste certificate has virtually reviewed its earlier order dated 21/6/2006 certifying the petitioner belongs to Panchkalsi caste that too within two days after the petitioner surrendered the first certificate. This needs to be enquired into.

23.The caste Sutar is notified at Sr. No.174 in State list of OBC communities for the first time vide Government Resolution dated 13/10/1967. Panchkalsi which is a sub-caste of Mali was included for the first time by Notification dated 1/1/2002. It is notified at Sr. No.182. It reads as under :

Mali 182Marar, Maral, Gase - 182

Vanmali, Savtamati,

Pachkalsi, Choukalash, Wadval,

Rain (Bagwan).

Therefore, though both these castes are OBC, they are distinct and separate from each other.

24.Certificate dated 21/6/2006 states that the petitioner "belongs to the Hindu Panchkalsi Sr. No.182 caste/community which is recognized as other Other Backward Class under the GR dated 13/10/1967". As stated earlier, this certificate was surrendered on 26/12/2006. The new certificate issued within two days i.e. on 28/12/2006 merely states that the petitioner belongs "to the Sutar caste at Sr. No.174 which is recognized as Other Backward Class under GR dated 14/2/1989 as amended from time to time". There is no reference to the earlier certificate dated 26/6/2006. Obviously, therefore, the Competent Authority has not stated whether it has cancelled earlier certificate issued by it or revoked it or reviewed it.

25.Through letter dated 7/9/2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban District, the caste verification application of the petitioner was received by the Scrutiny Committee for verification of his claim that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste. While examining the record, the Scrutiny Committee found that vide letter dated 29/12/2006, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mumbai had sent second application of the petitioner for verifying his claim that he belongs to Sutar caste. Thus, we have a strange situation where the Scrutiny Committee was called upon to decide the caste claim of the person that he belongs to Sutar caste and also that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste. This is so because, the Competent Authority could not have reviewed the first certificate. It is important to note that the petitioner had not informed the Scrutiny Committee about the first certificate. Certain documents which respondent 6 has brought on record, ought to have been brought on record by the petitioner. He has filed affidavit before the Competent Authority dated 14/10/2005 in support of his Panchkalsi claim and requested for caste certificate certifying that he is Panchkalsi. In this affidavit, he has stated that he and his entire family belong to Hindu Panchkalsi community. He has stated that in his school leaving certificate his race is mentioned as Hindu and his caste (sub-caste) Panchkalsi is not mentioned by mistake.

He has further stated that, however, he is in possession of caste certificate issued by his community as also caste certificate in respect of his paternal aunt Smt. Neela Desai (Nee Mohini Chogle) dated 1/1/2001 issued by the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District where her caste is mentioned as Hindu Panchkalsi. He has then given a genealogy and referred to seven documents such as ration card, property card, samaj certificate supporting his claim that he is Panchkalsi. All these documents are brought on record as annexures to the affidavit of Sunil Chavan - respondent 6. There is affidavit of the petitioners paternal aunt stating that she belongs to Panchkalsi caste. Not a single document was disclosed to the Scrutiny Committee by the petitioner.

26.Scrutiny Committee forwarded both the certificates for inquiry to the vigilance cell. The Scrutiny Committee has mentioned that the vigilance cell contacted office of the Tahsildar, Borivli about Panchkalsi certificate. Vigilance cell was informed by the office that the petitioner had returned his Panchkalsi certificate on 26/12/2006 to the Tahsildar office. This information was given in writing. The Scrutiny Committee has rightly expressed that the fact that the candidate has not communicated this information to the Scrutiny Committee is serious. The Scrutiny Committee has further noted that in the circumstances, it is improper to express any opinion on the Panchkalsi claim of the petitioner.

27.It appears that the vigilance cell only investigated the petitioners claim that he belongs to Sutar caste and reported that the evidence produced by the petitioner established that he is Sutar. Vigilance cell report dated 25/3/2007 states that the petitioner did not produce any documents pertaining to pre 1967 period. When he was asked, he stated that he did not have any such documents. He told the vigilance office that he was born in Borivli, Mumbai. That is his ancestral home town. He further stated that he belongs to Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj and carpentry is his ancestral occupation and, therefore, he is Sutar by caste. He submitted his affidavit dated 9/3/2007. Vigilance cell visited Borivli on 20/3/2007 and recorded statements of Hemant Chogle, Kishore Gujjar and Gopal Chogle, who are the petitioners relatives. They informed that the occupation of the family members of the petitioner is carpentry. On this basis, vigilance cell concluded that the petitioner is Sutar by caste.

28.Before the Scrutiny Committee, on behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the petitioner belongs to Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare community. Both Sutar and Panchkalsi are OBC and they fall in the broad nomenclature Somvanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj. It was pointed out that four sons of the petitioners brother have been issued caste validity certificates certifying them to be Sutar, Mali, Vadival which are sub-castes of Panchkalsi.

29.Respondent 6, who had filed objection, contended that the petitioner has obtained certificate certifying his caste as Sutar on the basis of fabricated evidence. The petitioner has not submitted documents which he had submitted while obtaining caste certificate certifying that he belongs to Panchkalsi caste. Within two days, he has obtained Sutar caste certificate. It was submitted that the Competent Authority does not have power to cancel the certificate and, therefore, the petitioners caste claim be invalidated.

30.The Scrutiny Committee referred to the documents submitted before the Competent Authority by the petitioner. It also referred to the documents submitted before it by the petitioner. The Scrutiny Committee observed that the petitioner submitted two applications for verification. He surrendered Panchkalsi caste certificate to the Competent Authority, however, he has not disclosed this fact to the Scrutiny Committee. Even today, that certificate is not cancelled. The Scrutiny Committee held that the petitioner has made an attempt to mislead the Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee observed that the petitioner has obtained certificate stating that he belongs to Mali/Panchkalsi caste. He had filed affidavit stating that his family belongs to Panchkalsi caste. In such circumstances, he cannot claim to belong to Sutar caste. The Scrutiny Committee further observed that the Competent Authority had issued Sutar caste certificate within two days. Therefore, it is apparent that no proper inquiry is made in respect of the second caste certificate. The Scrutiny Committee further observed that the petitioner has not submitted cogent evidence in support of his Sutar caste claim. The Scrutiny Committee stated that in this respect it has assigned reasons at point (c). At point (c), it is stated that school entries at Sr. Nos.4 and 5 i.e. school leaving certificates of Kanchangauri Chogle and Padmaja Chogle pertain to post 1967 period. Relationship of these persons with the petitioner is not proved. Moreover, vigilance cell inspector found that this entry is made after these persons left the school. So far as persons at serial Nos.6 and 7 i.e. Ganeshparasad Chogle and Niranjan Chogle are concerned, their relationship with the petitioner is not proved. In the circumstances, the Scrutiny Committee invalidated the petitioners claim to Panchkalsi caste as well as to Sutar caste. The Scrutiny Committee cancelled the petitioners certificate certifying that he belongs to Sutar caste.

31.It is strenuously contended by Mr. Jahagirdar relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patils case (supra) that if the Scrutiny Committee wanted to reject the report of the vigilance cell, it should have followed the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in that judgment. It should have given notice to the petitioner and should have asked the petitioner to submit his reply to the same and then passed a reasoned order. Inasmuch as this is not done the impugned order must be set aside and the matter must be remanded. In this connection, learned counsel has also relied on two judgments of this court which we have referred to hereinabove where similar course is followed.

32.There can be no doubt that if the Scrutiny Committee does not agree with the vigilance report, it has to follow the procedure laid down in Madhuri Patils case (supra). It is pointed out by respondent 6s counsel that in this case, respondent 6 had filed application before the Scrutiny Committee praying for cancellation of the caste certificate dated 28/12/2006 certifying that the petitioner belongs to Sutar caste. After he was supplied with the vigilance report dated 25/3/2007, respondent 6 submitted detailed objections to it. The vigilance report and the said objections were served on the petitioner and the petitioner had filed a detailed reply to it. Therefore, the requirements of law have been complied with. It is not possible to accept this. The Scrutiny Committee after considering respondent 6s objections and petitioners reply invalidated the Sutar caste claim of the petitioner. Thus, it did not accept the vigilance cell report, which was in favour of the petitioner. The fact that respondent 6 had filed objections to the report and the petitioner submitted his reply thereto does not do away with the requirement of issuing show cause notice to the petitioner as laid down by the Supreme Court. If the Scrutiny Committee did not want to accept the report, it should have made it known to the petitioner by issuing a notice and calling for an explanation. The Scrutiny Committee was then required to pass a reasoned order. The petitioner was conveyed the rejection of vigilance report only through final order. This, in our opinion, is improper. It does not accord with Supreme Courts judgment in Madhuri Patils case (supra).

33.We also find that though some documents submitted by the petitioner have been considered by the Scrutiny Committee, certain documents submitted by him have been just referred to by it. We are aware that if whole lot of irrelevant documents are submitted, it is not necessary for the Scrutiny Committee to consider each of them meticulously and give reasons for not accepting them. But, if there are any significant documents, providing important evidence, the Scrutiny Committee will have to consider them and give reasons if it decides not to accept them. In this connection, we may usefully refer to Cyrils case (supra) where the Supreme Court has held that reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, reasons howsoever brief must be set forth because they are indicative of application of mind. This is more so when an order is amenable to further avenue of challenge.

34.At the same time, we find substance in Mr. Tayshetyes argument that the matter cannot be remanded to enable the petitioner to file further documents because the petitioner ought to have filed all the documents before the Scrutiny Committee. A host of documents has been filed before the Scrutiny Committee. Scope of the proceedings cannot be expanded further by allowing the petitioner to multiply the documents. Therefore, though we are inclined to remand the matter on the ground that the Scrutiny Committee ought to have issued notice to the petitioner before rejecting vigilance cells report and because the reasons for rejecting some of the documents placed before the Scrutiny Committee have not been given by the Scrutiny Committee, we wish to make it clear that the Scrutiny Committee will only consider the available record. It shall not allow parties to file any new documents. We also make it clear that we have not permitted the petitioner to tender any new documents on record and we have not taken any new documents on record.

35.Though we are remanding the matter as law requires us to do so in the facts of this case, we must express our extreme displeasure about the conduct of the petitioner. He first got a certificate from the Competent Authority certifying that he is Panchkalsi. Then he surrendered it. Within two days, he got another certificate certifying that he is Sutar. Under what provision such a course is adopted has not been told to us. In fact, Competent Authority could not have done this. It had no power to review its order. Its first order was appealable. Competent Authoritys conduct surprises us. The fact that the petitioner surrendered the first certificate was not disclosed by him to the Scrutiny Committee. Number of documents filed by him to get Panchkalsi caste certificate were not disclosed by him before the Scrutiny Committee. He did not disclose the fact that his paternal aunt had obtained a Panchkalsi caste certificate and she had made an affidavit to that effect. The petitioner himself had made an affidavit stating that he is a Panchkalsi. He did not disclose it to the Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, he made another affidavit stating that he is a Sutar. In that affidavit, he did not give any reason why he was surrendering the first certificate. The sanctity of affidavit is glossed over by him. The Competent Authority gave second certificate in two days. What inquiry can the Competent Authority conduct in two days Some inconvenient questions arise from the above facts which in our opinion the petitioner has not answered satisfactorily.

36.In this connection, it is urged that Panchkalsi and Sutar are covered by Somwanshi Kshatriya Pathare Samaj and both are OBCs. It is well settled that a person gets his caste by birth. It is not for us to say that Panchkalsi and Sutar are synonymous. They are two distinct OBCs. The legal position is made clear by the Supreme Court in several judgments. In Palghat Jilla Thandan Samudhaya Samrakshana Samithi & Another v. State of Kerala & Anr., 1994 (1) SCC 359 [LQ/SC/1993/1048] , the Supreme Court has observed that the scheduled castes order has to be applied as it stands and no enquiry can be held or evidence led to determine whether or not a particular community falls within it or outside it. No action to modify the plain effect of the scheduled castes order, except as contemplated by Article 341, is valid. Similar view is taken by the Supreme Court in Milinds case (supra). The Scrutiny Committee will have to keep these judgments in mind and approach the case.

37.It was argued by Mr. Tayshetye, learned counsel for respondent 6 and, in our opinion, with some justification that the petitioner has withheld vital documents from the Scrutiny Committee, he had not disclosed that he had obtained Panchkalsi certificate and surrendered it, he has made two affidavits taking contrary statements, he did not disclose his earlier affidavit to the Scrutiny Committee and even in the present petition he has not disclosed vital facts. His conduct is so bad that this court should not show any indulgence to him in writ jurisdiction. Reliance is placed in this connection on the Supreme Courts judgment in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidus case (supra). In that case, the Supreme Court has observed as under :

"The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party".

38.We must also refer to Nutan Vidarbhas case (supra) to which our attention is drawn by Mr. Tayshetye. In that case, this court was, inter alia, concerned with the validity of certain Government Resolutions giving protection of services to those whose caste claims are invalidated in the caste verification proceedings. This court considered section 7 of the said Act which provides for confiscation and cancellation of false caste certificate and section 10 which provides for withdrawal of benefits secured on the basis of false caste certificates. While holding that the said GRs cannot protect the services of persons who have obtained false caste certificates this court observed as under :

".... it cannot be said that the claim of caste can be made by an accident or by mistake because the certificate is to be obtained on the basis of the representation made by the claimant to the concerned authority, supported by the materials prima facie disclosing the claim relating to the caste / tribe being genuine. Being so, it is entirely for the claimant to make a genuine and true claim and produce cogent materials regarding his caste. The caste being within the knowledge of the claimant, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that his claim can be false by mere mistake or by accident."

This court further observed :

" ..... the caste certificate is essentially obtained with an intention of availing the benefits. Being so, it is absolutely necessary for the claimant to ensure that he makes a truthful claim, otherwise it is nothing but a deceit which should warrant consequences as contemplated under the statutory provisions".

39.We are in respectful agreement with the above view. We have already deprecated the conduct of the petitioner. There is no doubt that the petitioner wanted his caste certificate to be validated because he had contested Municipal Corporation election on the seat reserved for other backward class. We are of the prima facie view that his conduct disentitles him from holding a public office. Only persons of utmost moral rectitude can hold a public office. In the light of the Supreme Courts judgment in S.P. Changalnarayas case (supra), we could have dismissed the petition. But the Scrutiny Committee has cancelled both the caste certificates of the petitioner. Under section 7(2) of the said Act, the order of the Scrutiny Committee can only be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Besides, as we have already noted that there are two flaws in the impugned order. If the Scrutiny Committee wanted to reject the vigilance cells report, it should have issued a notice to the petitioner in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patils case (supra) and followed the course laid down therein. The Scrutiny Committee should have given reasons why the documents submitted by the petitioner were not accepted by it. While it has given reasons for rejecting some, it has not given reasons for rejecting others. On the above grounds, the matter will have to be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner has filed different affidavits taking different stands. We have refrained from initiating any action for such action may be premature having regard to the fact that we are remanding the matter. But in case after conclusion of the proceedings, it appears that the petitioner has not made truthful claim or he appears to be guilty of deceit, appropriate action may be taken against him and, in case such action is taken, the court seized of the matter will have to deal with the petitioner independently and in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we pass the following order:

ORDER :

(a) The impugned order dated 4/5/2007 passed by the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai, is set aside.

(b) The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for disposal in accordance with law in the light of this judgment. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide which of the caste certificates of the petitioner is valid or whether both are invalid.

(c) We make it clear that parties will not be allowed to tender any new documents on record. The Scrutiny Committee shall deal with the documents which are on record.

(d) As regards the vigilance cell report, the Scrutiny Committee will follow procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in paragraph 13 (6) and (7) of the judgment in Madhuri Patils case (supra).

(e) The Scrutiny Committee shall give reasons for not accepting the documents submitted by the parties.

(f) The petitioner has filed different affidavits and prima facie it appears that he has withheld material information from the Scrutiny Committee. Upon conclusion of the proceedings, if it is found that he is guilty of suppression or guilty of misleading the Scrutiny Committee, he may be dealt with in accordance with law. In case any proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, the court seized of the matter shall deal with it in accordance with law and independently.

40.We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and we leave all contentions of all parties open which the Scrutiny Committee shall consider independently and in accordance with law.

41.Before parting, we must note that several judgments have been cited by learned counsel for the parties. After we concluded the hearing and reserved the matter for judgment, some judgments have been tendered in the court. Such course must be avoided by counsel. Only if a very relevant judgment is inadvertently not brought to the notice of the court, in an exceptional case, it may be brought to the notice of the court, by giving notice to the other side before the judgment is delivered, not otherwise. In any case, in the interest of justice, we have perused all the judgments and referred to only those judgments which, in our opinion, are relevant to the issues involved.

42.The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms.

43.Copy of our judgment be sent to the Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, for information. Considering the fact that the election petition filed by respondent 6 is pending, the Scrutiny Committee shall dispose of the remanded matter as expeditiously as possible. The parties shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 4/4/2008. We note the presence of the petitioner in the court.

44.All connected civil applications are also disposed of.