{"id":189872,"date":"2009-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2"},"modified":"2017-04-21T17:16:25","modified_gmt":"2017-04-21T11:46:25","slug":"devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2","title":{"rendered":"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: V.C. Daga, Mridula Bhatkar<\/div>\n
                                                                 :1:\n\nbgp\n                      IN       THE         HIGH          COURT            OF             JUDICATURE                   AT      BOMBAY\n\n                                 CIVIL                                 APPELLATE                                          JURISDICTION\n\n                                 WRIT                   PETITION                      NO.3739                         OF            2008\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                         \n           Devendra                                              Gurunath                                                     Khedgikar\n           Age                 23                    yrs.,                        Occu                      :                   Service,\n           R\/o..Akshay                              Society,                                   Plot                              No.23,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   \n           S.No.328\/1B,                                                                                                         Mhada,\n           Jule Solpaur, Solapur - 413 004                                                              ..Petitioner\n\n           Vs.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                  \n           1.                  The                     Scheduled                                Tribe                         Certificate\n                 Scrutiny                          Committee,                                  Pune                             Region,\n                 Pune.\n\n           2. The State of Maharashtra                                                                  ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                              \n                                                             WITH\n                                 WRIT                   PETITION                      NO.4840                         OF            2008\n\n           1.\n                 Age\n                 Residing\n                                     \n                                      54\n                                        Sidram\n\n                                             at\n                                                         yrs.,\n                                                                       157,\n                                                                                  Sayabanna\n                                                                                    Occu\n                                                                                                Vishal\n                                                                                                                :\n                                                                                                                              Khedgikar\n                                                                                                                                Service,\n                                                                                                                                 Nagar,\n                 Jule                             Solpaur,                                Vijapur                                 Road,\n                                    \n                 Solapur                                -                                   413                                     004\n\n           2.                            Vishal                                    Sidram                                     Khedgikar\n                 Age                     Adult,                         Occu                       :                            Service,\n                 Residing                    at                        157,                     Vishal                           Nagar,\n         \n\n                 Jule                           Solpaur,                                  Vijapur                                 Road,\n                 Solapur                              -                                     413                                     004\n      \n\n\n\n           3.                           Vinayak                                     Sidram                                    Khedgikar\n                 Age                    Adult,                         Occu                       :                           Education,\n                 Residing                   at                         157,                     Vishal                           Nagar,\n                 Jule                          Solpaur,                                   Vijapur                                 Road,\n                 Solapur - 413 004.                                                                 ..Petitioners\n     \n\n\n\n\n           Vs.\n\n           1.                   The                            State                           of                            Maharashtra\n                 Through                               the                                   Secretary                                to\n                 Government,                                           Tribal                                               Development\n\n\n\n\n\n                 Department,                                                                                                 Mantralaya,\n                 Mumbai                                                       -                                                      32.\n\n           2.              The               Deputy                               Director                          (R)              and\n                 Member                                           Secretary,                                                  Committee\n                 For                      Scrutiny                                       and                                 Verification\n                 of                Tribal                         Claims,                             Pune                      Division\n                 28, Queens Garden, Pune.                                                               ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::\n                                                            :2:\n\n\n     Mr.Y.S.Jahagirdar,                     Senior            Advocate                    with               Mr.Sarang\n     Aradhye                    and                    Mr.A.B.Avhad                      for                petitioners.\n     Mr.V.A.Gangal,                   Special              Counsel                with                Mr.S.S.Deshmukh\n     for                                                                                                   respondents.\n\n                                                          AND\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                     \n                             WRIT                    PETITION              NO.4094                   OF            2008\n\n     Miss.Jagdevi                                           Gurunath                                         Khedgikar\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n     Age                 21                      yrs.,                 Occu                    :              Student,\n     R\/o..Akshay                                Society,                          Plot                          No.23,\n     S.No.328\/1B,                                                                                              Mhada,\n     Jule Solpaur, Solapur - 413 004                                                       ..Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       \n     Vs.\n\n     1.                   The                       Scheduled                      Tribe                     Certificate\n           Scrutiny                             Committee,                        Pune                         Region,\n           Pune.\n\n\n\n\n                                                          \n     2. The State of Maharashtra                                                           ..Respondents\n\n\n\n                             WRIT\n                                 ig                       WITH\n                                                     PETITION              NO.4095                   OF            2008\n\n     Vijaykumar                                            Gurunath                                          Khedgikar\n                               \n     Age                 26                      yrs.,                 Occu                    :               Service,\n     R\/o..Akshay                                Society,                          Plot                          No.23,\n     S.No.328\/1B,                                                                                              Mhada,\n     Jule Solpaur, Solapur - 413 004                                                       ..Petitioner\n      \n\n     Vs.\n\n     1.                   The                       Scheduled                      Tribe                     Certificate\n   \n\n\n\n           Scrutiny                             Committee,                        Pune                         Region,\n           Pune.\n\n     2. The State of Maharashtra                                                           ..Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n     Mr.A.B.Avhad                with                Ms.Rachita           Dhuru                for\n                                                                                                petitioners.\n     Mr.V.A.Gangal,                 Special                Counsel                with    Mr.S.S.Deshmukh\n     for                                                                                        respodents.\n                                                 CORAM               :-              V.C.DAGA             &\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                     MRS.MRIDULA            BHATKAR,JJ.\n                                                 DATE              :            12TH     FEBRUARY,2009\n\n     JUDGMENT                           (                    PER                    :                     V.C.DAGA,J.)\n<\/pre>\n
     1.                         Perused petition. Rule returnable forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
     Learned counsel for respondents waives service. Heard<\/p>\n
     finally by consent of parties.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                   :3:<\/span><\/p>\n
     2.                              The Petition, filed under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
     Constitution                    of        India,         is           directed              against              the           order<\/p>\n
     dated               25th               April,      2008             passed          by        the          Schedule            Tribe<\/p>\n
     Certificate                Scrutiny                   Committee,               Pune                       Region,              Pune,<\/p>\n
     prima                facie;                 finding           that           the         caste            certificate           was<\/p>\n
     obtained                   by                      practicing                               misrepresentation                   and<\/p>\n
     concealing                      true        and         material               facts             amounting               to    fraud<\/p>\n
     on                   the          authority           issuing              certificate              and            calling     upon<\/p>\n
     the            petitioner                 to       submit            his           explanation                    within         15<\/p>\n
     days as to why the certificate validating his tribe<\/p>\n
     claim should not be cancelled and confiscated.\n<\/p>\n
     3.<\/p>\n
                                     Parties are different but the issue is<\/p>\n
     identical, so a single judgment will dispose of all<\/p>\n
     these writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
     4.                              For the sake of convenience facts are drawn<\/p>\n
     from Writ Petition No.3739 of 200.\n<\/p>\n
     FACTUAL BACKGROUND :\n<\/p>\n
     5.                              The factual background leading to the petition<\/p>\n
     is              that            the        Petitioner              intended            to          take           admission      for<\/p>\n
     the        course          in          Bachelor         of           Engineering              in           the          year   2002<\/p>\n
     against the seat reserved for scheduled tribe category<\/p>\n
     candidates.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                :4:<\/span><\/p>\n
     6.                                  The petitioner claiming to be scheduled tribe<\/p>\n
     belonging                          to            Mahadev                      Koli           tribe,             applied                 for           issuance<\/p>\n
     of                  tribe               certificate                  and                     submitted                  it               to                the<\/p>\n
     respondent                   No.1                      for                    its      scrutiny.                             The                   respondent<\/p>\n
     No.1,                       the            Enquiry                  Committee                  validated                the              tribe          claim<\/p>\n
     of        the               petitioner                 on                10th              June,2005               and               certified            that<\/p>\n
     the petitioner is scheduled tribe being “Mahadev<\/p>\n
     Koli”.\n<\/p>\n
     7.                                  On the basis of the aforesaid certificate,<\/p>\n
     petitioner’s                            sister              and               another               brother               also                         applied<\/p>\n
     for                   certificate                of            validity                on           15th            June,2005.                          Their<\/p>\n
     cases<\/p>\n
     Vigilance
\n                     were<\/p>\n
                                  Cell,
\n                                         ig   referred<\/p>\n
                                                            during
\n                                                                        to<\/p>\n
                                                                               the
\n                                                                                          the<\/p>\n
                                                                                            course
\n                                                                                                          Vigilance<\/p>\n
                                                                                                            of
\n                                                                                                                                      Cell.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                  enquiry
\n                                                                                                                                                               The<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                                             found<\/p>\n
     that          one                 Mr.Vishal                   Sidram                  Khedgikar                  had               obtained              tribe<\/p>\n
     certificate                   by                      playing                 fraud          on        the             committee                        which<\/p>\n
     was           the            basis               of                the              order      in           the               case               of        the<\/p>\n
     petitioner                   and                      the          alleged             fraud          was           not            noticed                 by<\/p>\n
     them             while                     relying                   upon                   that                certificate                   in           the<\/p>\n
     enquiry when the tribe claim of the petitioner was<\/p>\n
     enquired into.\n<\/p>\n
     8.                                  The Scrutiny Committee, prima facie; finding<\/p>\n
     case                 of                    misrepresentation                        amounting              to          fraud             on                the<\/p>\n
     committee                         passed                       an              order           communicating                   the                     present<\/p>\n
     petitioner                  that                  the                      Scrutiny            Committee                         was                   misled<\/p>\n
     while                       obtaining                   tribe                 claim            validity                certificate                        and<\/p>\n
     called         upon               the        petitioner                  to           show          cause            as            to          why         his<\/p>\n
     certificate                  should                          not          be           cancelled.                      This             order               is<\/p>\n
                                                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          :5:<\/span><\/p>\n
     the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed<\/p>\n
     under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     SUBMISSIONS :\n<\/p>\n
     9.                                 Mr.Jahagirdar learned Senior Counsel appearing<\/p>\n
     for                 petitioner                 submits                that               respondent             No.1                       Scrutiny<\/p>\n
     Committee                    has         no          power            to          review        its          own           order               being<\/p>\n
     quasi                   judicial           authority               not             bestowed             with              the                 power<\/p>\n
     of           review                 in         the         statute.                In       other           words,                   no         such<\/p>\n
     power              of               review                  exists           in      the       statute         as                such            the<\/p>\n
     impugned            order
\n                                     ig       and<\/p>\n
     earlier order dated 10th June, 2005 is bad in law and
\n                                                           show                 cause            notice           seeking                 to      review<\/p>\n
     liable to be quashed and set aside.\n<\/p>\n
     10.                           Mr.Jahagirdar, further submits that the tenor<\/p>\n
     of           the               impugned                       order           dated          25th                   April,2008                would<\/p>\n
     unequivocally                 goes                   to               show                      that                 respondent                No.1<\/p>\n
     Scrutiny           Committee                    has             already                   formed              its           opinion             that<\/p>\n
     the             validity                  of                certificate            has                been                 obtained               by<\/p>\n
     practicing                    fraud             on           the             Committee                by            the                   petitioner,<\/p>\n
     as       such           no           useful               purpose            would             be           served              by        answering<\/p>\n
     show             cause                   notice.                        In         his       submission,                   show                cause<\/p>\n
     notice                  is          in         breach              of             principles           of           natural                  justice<\/p>\n
     since the subject issue has already been prejudged by<\/p>\n
     the Committee.\n<\/p>\n
     11.                           Per contra, Mr.V.A.Gangal, Special Counsel<\/p>\n
                                                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                      :6:<\/span><\/p>\n
     appearing                       for             respondents                           urged               that              in             the            event          the<\/p>\n
     validity                 of                    certificate                 is           found              to           be                   obtained                     by<\/p>\n
     fraudulent                          means                and              concealment                       of              true             facts,                     then<\/p>\n
     Scrutiny                   Committee                                certainly                                         has                        power                  and<\/p>\n
     jurisdiction                        to                        set               at           nought                   the             said                       certificate.\n<\/p>\n
     He                   further                  submits                that               said              exercise                    of              power          cannot<\/p>\n
     be           termed                      as               exercise               of          power           of             review.                         In           his<\/p>\n
     submission,                         fraud                      vitiates                                   every                         thing                      including<\/p>\n
     judicial                       or             quasi                 judicial                 order.                              He              further            submits<\/p>\n
     that           it               is                  no         doubt                 true         that                 the                 impugned                    order<\/p>\n
     calling                   upon                the             petitioner                    to           show               cause                is         not        very<\/p>\n
     happily                   worded,                        as               it                       gives                an                 indication                     of<\/p>\n
     prejudging<\/p>\n
     order               be
\n                              the
\n                                           ig  issue.\n<\/p>\n
                                           treated             as          a\n                                                                                He,\n\n                                                                                          prima\n                                                                                                  thus,\n\n                                                                                                         facie;\n                                                                                                                      submits\n\n                                                                                                                                   opinion\n                                                                                                                                                that             the\n\n                                                                                                                                                                of\n                                                                                                                                                                             said\n\n                                                                                                                                                                              the\n                                         \n     committee                           and             show               cause                     notice           to              the                 petitioner        and\n\n     further                  enquiry                              be          ordered                  by            any              other                         independent\n\n     Scrutiny                       Committee                              other                  than               the              Committee                           issuing\n      \n\n\n     notice.                         He,                      thus,             submits                 that           the             petition               can              be\n   \n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     conveniently worked out on the line of submissions<\/p>\n
     made by him.\n<\/p>\n
     12.                                 In rejoinder, Mr.Jahagirdar urged that this<\/p>\n
     Court               should                      clarify              the              extent         of           the            power                     to             be<\/p>\n
     exercised                 by                   the                   Scrutiny                    Committee                        and                    that            the<\/p>\n
     matter              should                     be                   allowed                 to       be                 adjudicated                         by            an<\/p>\n
     independent Scrutiny Committee on its own merits<\/p>\n
     leaving the remedies of the rival parties open.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                   :7:<\/span><\/p>\n
     CONSIDERATION :\n<\/p>\n
     13.                             Having heard rival contentions, it is beyond<\/p>\n
     doubt          and              now                well                 established                   that           the              quasi             judicial<\/p>\n
     authority          cannot                  review                 its               own              order           unless                the           power<\/p>\n
     of                 review                 is           expressly                   conferred             by              the          Statute            under<\/p>\n
     which        it       drives               its           power.                      The             power           of         review             is       not<\/p>\n
     an        inherent           power.                          It              must          be           conferred              by            law         either<\/p>\n
     specifically                    or                      by             necessary                implications.                         No                   such<\/p>\n
     provision,                 in                    fact,            is          brought            to          our                  notice,                 from<\/p>\n
     which                 it         can              be           gathered               that             the         Scrutiny                        Committee<\/p>\n
     has               power              to          review                its          own          order.                    (See          The            District<\/p>\n
     Collector<\/p>\n
     Co.<\/p>\n
\n                                of\n\n                                AIR\n                                       ig      Hyderabad\n\n                                               1970            SC\n                                                                            and\n\n                                                                              1275<\/span>\n                                                                                         Ors.\n\n                                                                                               Para-4\n                                                                                                                  Vs.\n\n                                                                                                                  and\n                                                                                                                                       M\/s.Ibrahim\n\n                                                                                                                               Dr.Smt.Kuntesh\n                                                                                                                                                                 and\n\n                                                                                                                                                              Gupta\n                                     \n     vs.                          Management                        of              Hindu             Kanya               Mahavidyalaya,                     Sitapur\n\n     AIR            1987               SC             2186).                 In         view         of      the        law         laid        down              by\n\n     the               Apex                         Court,               we                    accept               the             contention                    of\n      \n\n\n<\/pre>\n
     Mr.Jahagirdar that the Scrutiny Committee has no power<\/p>\n
     to review its own order.\n<\/p>\n
     14.                             The question whether the impugned order is<\/p>\n
     correct               or              valid               in                 law                does               not                 arise                for<\/p>\n
     consideration                        in           the             present             petition               so          long           as                  the<\/p>\n
     order granting the certificate is not set aside or<\/p>\n
     declared void by the competent authority.\n<\/p>\n
     15.                             Having said so, one thing is absolutely clear<\/p>\n
     in           law                 that            the         law             does         not         protect        either                   of            the<\/p>\n
     parties            whose                       actions                   are         tainted                  by               fraud.                      Any<\/p>\n
                                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               :8:<\/span><\/p>\n
     person                      obtaining                          validity                       certificate                             must                           satisfy<\/p>\n
     that              he              has          strictly             complied                           with              the           provisions                        of<\/p>\n
     law                    and                approached                     respondent                               No.1               Scrutiny                Committee<\/p>\n
     with clean hands disclosing all his cards without<\/p>\n
     suppressing material facts.\n<\/p>\n
     16.                              The principle of “finality of litigation”\n<\/p>\n
     cannot              be             pressed              to         the               extent                   of            such            an                  absurdity<\/p>\n
     that        it                   becomes            an         engine                of            fraud               in       the                   hands               of<\/p>\n
     dishonest                    litigants.                       The               courts                       of          law            are            meant             for<\/p>\n
     imparting                    justice              between                 the                  parties.                            One                who            comes<\/p>\n
     to          the          Court,              must            come              with                clean               hands.                     A                  person,<\/p>\n
     whose<\/p>\n
     approach
\n                       case<\/p>\n
                      the<\/p>\n
                                      court.\n<\/p>\n
                                             is               based\n\n                                                                  He\n                                                                               on\n\n                                                                               can\n                                                                                               falsehood,\n\n                                                                                                   be              summarily\n                                                                                                                            has         no\n\n                                                                                                                                               thrown\n                                                                                                                                                            right\n\n                                                                                                                                                                    out\n                                                                                                                                                                               to\n\n                                                                                                                                                                               at\n                                      \n     any          stage                      of        the         litigation.                              A           judgment                       or                 decree\n\n     obtained                by                   playing              fraud                  on             the            court           is         a                  nullity\n\n     and         non                   est               in            the                     eyes                    of          law.                     Such               a\n      \n\n\n     judgment\/decree                         by          the             first                 court                   or          by            the                      highest\n   \n\n\n\n     court             has             to         be          treated               as             a              nullity            by          every                     court,\n\n<\/pre>\n
     whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in<\/p>\n
     any court even in collateral proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
     .                                      A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with<\/p>\n
     the          design                       of                  securing                   something                     by                   taking                    unfair<\/p>\n
     advantage                   of          another.                    It              is             a          deception                in         order                   to<\/p>\n
     gain              by             another’s              loss.                        It                is          a           cheating               intended            to<\/p>\n
     get         an                    advantage.                              A              litigant,                 who                  approaches                       the<\/p>\n
     court,                 is              bound             to          produce                           all             the           documents                  executed<\/p>\n
     by          him                    which            are           relevant                    to             the            litigation.                 If               he<\/p>\n
                                                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                             :9:<\/span><\/p>\n
     withholds                     a             vital          document                 in             order            to           gain              advantage<\/p>\n
     on            the           other           side          then          he          would             be        guilty            of                 playing<\/p>\n
     fraud             on            the          court         as          well             as         on         the             opposite                party.\n<\/p>\n
     (See            S.P.Chengalvaraya                          Naidu                    (Dead)                    By                 Lrs.                    Vs.<\/p>\n
     Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. and others (1994) 1 SCC<\/p>\n
     (Para 5 & 6).\n<\/p>\n
               6)<\/p>\n
     17.                             The fraud is, essentially a question of fact,<\/p>\n
     the           burden                   of         proof         is       upon             him         who           alleges           it.                He<\/p>\n
     who             alleges                 fraud,                  must          do          so        promptly.                           There              is<\/p>\n
     presumption                           of             legality                in              favour            of               statutory             order.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n     The            order                   of                respondent                            No.1                 Scrutiny                   Committee\n\n     validating                the\n                                        ig         tribe\n\n<\/pre>\n
     presumed to be valid unless proved to be vitiated by
\n                                                                          claim                   of             the                  petitioner                is<\/p>\n
     misrepresentation or fraud.\n<\/p>\n
     18.                             If the order was obtained by fraud or<\/p>\n
     misrepresentation                            by           the           party                seeking              it            and           if         that<\/p>\n
     comes                  to             the           notice            of            the            judicial              or        quasi             judicial<\/p>\n
     authority         and             if              such           authority                prima             facie;                          forms         an<\/p>\n
     opinion                that                    the         process                was             abused        then             such                  order<\/p>\n
     can         always           be             interfered               with           and            set        at              nought          by         the<\/p>\n
     same                 authority                        exercising              the            very          same                power                  under<\/p>\n
     which               the                 original             order           was             passed.                   This           power                is<\/p>\n
     always retained by the authority or Court passing the<\/p>\n
     order.\n<\/p>\n
     19.                             On the above canvass, it is clear that<\/p>\n
     respondent            No.1                  while            deciding                the              issue               as           to           whether<\/p>\n
                                                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                              :10:<\/span><\/p>\n
     the                    certificate                  was             obtained                     by               misrepresentation                            or<\/p>\n
     fraud              will                    confine                          itself               to                 the                   issue                of<\/p>\n
     misrepresentation                   and               fraud                  alone                    and               shall             not             review<\/p>\n
     its            order                based                   on         new           material.                     Formation                      of          an<\/p>\n
     second                 opinion                      on             the                      same                  material                   is               not<\/p>\n
     permissible.                             On               merits,                the                        order                     cannot                  be<\/p>\n
     interfered with because that would amount to<\/p>\n
     exercising power of review.\n<\/p>\n
     20.                              The order can only be interfered with and set<\/p>\n
     at              nought              if          respondent                   No.1            comes                 to           the                    conclusion<\/p>\n
     that            the                 certificate                    was                     obtained                     by                misrepresentation<\/p>\n
     and\/or<\/p>\n
     person
\n                        fraud<\/p>\n
                            or        on
\n                                        ig      and\/or<\/p>\n
                                                   the         basis
\n                                                                            in<\/p>\n
                                                                                 of
\n                                                                                      collusion<\/p>\n
                                                                                           the             forged
\n                                                                                                                       with<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                             documents.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                                                                           some                  other\n\n                                                                                                                                                                  The\n                                      \n     respondent                       No.1               shall              bear                 in               mind                     the                  above\n\n     distinction                      between               the             power                of              review              and                      exercise\n\n<\/pre>\n
     of the power to set aside the certificate obtained by<\/p>\n
     praying falsehood and\/or fraud.\n<\/p>\n
     21.                              Taking over all view of the matter, looking to<\/p>\n
     the        consensus                     between                 the               parties                  to           the           petition,              the<\/p>\n
     impugned               order              dated              25th                April,                 2008                 shall           be           treated<\/p>\n
     as         a                prima              facie;                       formation                    of              opinion                  by          the<\/p>\n
     Scrutiny                     Committee,               a           basis              for              issuing            a           show                  cause<\/p>\n
     notice                      to           the            petitioner,                  which                  the              petitioner                     shall<\/p>\n
     reply             within                       30         days              from           today             and          that         the                 matter<\/p>\n
     should                be                 heard            and          decided              by           the                   Committee                    other<\/p>\n
     than           respondent                 No.1                   Scrutiny                  Committee                     meant               for            Pune<\/p>\n
     Region.                             As                 suggested                       by                   Mr.V.A.Gangal,                                Special<\/p>\n
                                                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                :11:<\/span><\/p>\n
     Counsel                the                show       cause        notice           shall               be              adjudicated<\/p>\n
     upon          by              the           Scrutiny             Committee                  meant                for       Nashik<\/p>\n
     Region,                Nashik               having        its          office        at                Nashik             without<\/p>\n
     getting influenced by either of the orders, referred<\/p>\n
     to hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
     22.                          Needless to mention that after receipt of the<\/p>\n
     reply             to                the      show         cause          notice,           the      Committee                shall<\/p>\n
     adjudicate              upon                the        show       cause            notice         by         a           reasoned<\/p>\n
     order                   following            principles           of            natural            justice                 within<\/p>\n
     eight weeks thereafter. All rival contentions on<\/p>\n
     merits are kept open.\n<\/p>\n
     23.<\/p>\n
                                  Rule in all these petitions is made absolute<\/p>\n
     in terms of this order. No order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
     (MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)                                                                             (V.C.DAGA,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:20:36 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 Bench: V.C. Daga, Mridula Bhatkar :1: bgp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3739 OF 2008 Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar Age 23 yrs., Occu : Service, R\/o..Akshay Society, Plot No.23, S.No.328\/1B, Mhada, Jule Solpaur, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189872","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDevendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-21T11:46:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-21T11:46:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\"},\"wordCount\":1639,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\",\"name\":\"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-21T11:46:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-21T11:46:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009","datePublished":"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-21T11:46:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2"},"wordCount":1639,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2","name":"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-21T11:46:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/devendra-gurunath-khedgikar-vs-the-scheduled-tribe-certificate-on-12-february-2009-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Devendra Gurunath Khedgikar vs The Scheduled Tribe Certificate on 12 February, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189872","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189872"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189872\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189872"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189872"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189872"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}