2020 (1) TMI 1644 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of validity certificate in favour of the Petitioners, resultantly invalidating the tribe claim of the Petitioners - direction to authorities to take action against the Petitioners including the lodgment of offences against Petitioner No.1 - some interpolation in the record as and by way of an addition of words in the school record - HELD THAT - The claimant who is desirous of validation of his tribe claim, approaches the competent scrutiny committee as per the procedure laid down in accordance with the law, i.e., relevant Act and Rules. While submitting his claim before the competent scrutiny committee, it is pre-requisite that the claimant must submit the complete and real / genuine information or material to the scrutiny committee. Meaning thereby, the claimant is to submit material supporting his claim and also material adverse, if any, to his claim. Not only this, in the present matter, the Petitioners have gone to the extent of maintaining silence in respect of the existence of the near relative / family member, ie., Devidas, the son of Petitioner No.1 and brother of Petitioner No. 2 in the genealogical tree or family tree. Apart from non disclosure of fact of invalidation of the claim of cousin sister Jyoti Mupade, the suppression of rejection of tribe claim of Devidas who is nearest relative of both the petitioners is to act adversely against these petitioners - the show cause notices were already issued to the Petitioner calling upon them to submit their say and to remain present before the scrutiny committee and in spite of receipt of notices, the Petitioners failed to appear before the scrutiny committee. It may not be out of place to refer to the principle oftenly quoted that he who approaches the Court of law, must approach the Court with clean hands. In the present matter, the Petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts, which were within their knowledge and in stead of approaching the competent scrutiny committee by disclosing the entire material, the Petitioners have placed only material which was supporting to the claims of Petitioners and this act of the Petitioners is certainly not a bonafide act and it can safely be stated that the Petitioners have not approached the scrutiny committee with genuine intention to seek validation of their tribe claims, but with an intention to obtain the certificates by suppressing the material facts. The petition is devoid of any merit as such deserves to be dismissed - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Scrutiny Committee's order recalling the validity certificate.
2. Alleged failure to follow the principle of natural justice.
3. Alleged suppression of material facts by the Petitioners.
4. Jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee to recall the validity certificate.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Scrutiny Committee's Order Recalling the Validity Certificate:
The Petitioners challenged the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 26th April 2020, which recalled its earlier order granting validity certificates and invalidated the tribe claims of the Petitioners. The Scrutiny Committee also directed authorities to take action against the Petitioners, including lodging offenses against Petitioner No.1. The Petitioners argued that the Scrutiny Committee exceeded its power as it had no authority to recall its order granting the validity certificate.

2. Alleged Failure to Follow the Principle of Natural Justice:
The Petitioners contended that the Scrutiny Committee failed to follow the principle of natural justice by not giving them an opportunity to be heard before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the Petitioners emphasized that the Committee issued notices to Petitioner No.1 to appear on 23rd April 2013, but the notice was received only on 1st May 2013, after the decision had already been made. Petitioner No.2 did not receive any show cause notice. The Petitioners argued that the Committee's decision was taken without their input, thus violating the principle of natural justice.

3. Alleged Suppression of Material Facts by the Petitioners:
The Respondent-State, represented by the learned AGP, argued that the Petitioners suppressed material facts when submitting their claims for validation. Specifically, the Petitioners did not disclose that the tribe claims of their close relatives, including Jyoti Sheshrao Mupade and Devidas Balaji Mupade, had been invalidated. The AGP asserted that the Petitioners' act of withholding this information amounted to fraud. The Scrutiny Committee's order referenced the suppression of facts by the Petitioners, particularly in clauses (c) and (d).

4. Jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee to Recall the Validity Certificate:
The Petitioners argued that the Scrutiny Committee did not have the jurisdiction to recall the validity certificates once granted. However, the Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee had the authority to issue notices for reconsideration of validation claims if there were allegations of fraud. The Committee issued notices to the Petitioners and other relatives of Jyoti Mupade, who had obtained validity certificates by allegedly suppressing material facts.

Court's Observations and Judgment:
The Court found that the Petitioners had indeed suppressed material facts, particularly the invalidation of the tribe claims of their close relatives. The Court observed that the Petitioners did not disclose the invalidation of Devidas Balaji Mupade's tribe claim, who was the son of Petitioner No.1 and the brother of Petitioner No.2. The Court noted that the Petitioners had submitted incomplete information in their applications, which was a violation of the requirement to provide complete and genuine information.

The Court also found that the Scrutiny Committee had issued proper notices to the Petitioners, and their failure to respond to these notices could not be used as a defense. The Court emphasized that the Petitioners, having approached the Scrutiny Committee with unclean hands by suppressing material facts, could not now claim that the Committee violated the principle of natural justice or exceeded its jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Scrutiny Committee acted within its jurisdiction and that the Petitioners were guilty of suppressing material facts. The Court concluded that the Petitioners' claims were devoid of merit and upheld the Scrutiny Committee's order invalidating the tribe claims and recalling the validity certificates.

← Previous Next →