Bombay High Court
Manoj Nagnath Koli vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 28 July, 2026
CNR No : HCBM030416892025
2026:BHC-AUG:31401-DB
1 WP 12660 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
District : Dharashiv
WRIT PETITION NO.12660 OF 2025
Manoj Nagnath Koli
Age : 30 Years, Occu. Education,
R/o. Tamalwadi,
Tuljapur,
Dharashiv. ......PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Social Justice and Special
Assistance Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032.
2. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,
Through its Joint Commissioner
/ Vice Chairman ......RESPONDENTS
Mr. Ameya N. Sabnis, Advocate for Petitioner
Mrs. J. P. Reddy, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State
CORAM : KISHORE C.SANT AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
RESERVED DATE : 20.07.2026
PRONOUNCED DATE : 28.07.2026
2 WP 12660 2025
JUDGMENT (Per Ajit B. Kadethankar, J.):
–
1. Preface:
We have this occasion to test a tribe certificate invalidation
case on the principles embodied in the doctrine of vitiation. This is
because a question posed before is whether the Petitioner who
seeks tribe certificate validity citing validation of one of the
relative, but simultaneously suppressing the invalidities of other
close blood relatives, can seek merger of findings recorded in
another validity. Another co-related issue we require to answer is
‘although every suppression may not be a fraud, yet whether if
suppression of ‘vital’ part of joint and common record affecting
the validation claim can be concessioned as ignorance.’ Thus, it
has become incumbent to define a line between ‘suppression of
facts and ignorance of facts’ in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the
parties, we have heard the Writ Petition for final disposal. Original
file pertaining to Petitioner’s tribe certificate validation claim is
produced before us by the respondent Scheduled Tribe Certificate
Validation Committee for inspection.
3. Subject-matter : Feeling aggrieved by the decision and order
dated 08-10-2025 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate
3 WP 12660 2025
Scrutiny Committee Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar [“Committee” for
brevity] the Petitioner has taken recourse to Section 7 of the
Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified
Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes
and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 [“the Act” for brevity].
Petitioner possesses Tribe Certificate as ‘Koli Mahadeo’ and
seeks its validation. Needless to mention, while “Koli Mahadeo” is
a Scheduled Tribe; “Koli” is not a Scheduled Tribe.
4. Facts in brief:
(a) Sub Divisional Officer Dharashiv issued Scheduled Tribe
Certificate in the name of the Petitioner on 26-10-2021 thereby
certifying his tribe as ‘Koli Mahadeo’. The Petitioner lodged his
tribe certificate validation claim with the Committee on
24-02-2025. He filed Writ Petition No.11027 of 2025 before this
Court seeking directions against the Committee for early disposal
of his claim. This Court vide its order dated 10-09-2025 disposed
of the Writ Petition directing the Committee to decide the claim
within a specified timeframe.
(b) The Committee completed its process and at the conclusion,
declined for validation. Hence this petition.
4 WP 12660 2025
(c) The Petitioner has relied upon tribe certificate validation of
his close blood relatives. Copies of those certificates are annexed
to the Writ Petition.
01 Manoj Dnyanoba Aadatrao 10-10-2011
02 Deelip Raghunath Aadatrao 24-06-2011
03 Raghunath Tatya Aadatrao 24-06-2011
04 Deepak Raghunath Aadatrao 24-12-2008
05 Amitkumar Mahadeo Aadatrao 03-02-2011
(d) Besides above validations, the Petitioner relied upon
26 evidences in support of his claim. Out of those, he
predominantly rely on old instances of tribe record. The oldest
record is of 1951. For the sake of convenience, the old documents
are mentioned as below:
(All record shows tribe as Koli Mahadeo)
Vyankat Hanmant Cousin School record in Urdu 25-06-1951
Aadatrao grandfather with its translation
Yeshwant Nana Koli Great Revenue record 1955-56
Grandfather (Khasra Patrak)
Nagnath Laxman Koli Father School record 15-06-1974
onwards
Laxman Yeshwant Grandfather Caste certificate 05-11-1979
Aadatrao
Bali Bankatrao Aadatrao 17-06-1983 School record 08-07-1987
5 WP 12660 2025
(e) The Committee found the case fit to refer for domestic
vigilance u/s 12(2) of the Act, and hence it was referred to police
vigilance cell for vigilance enquiry. The Police Vigilance Cell
conducted its enquiry. School record and revenue record of the
Petitioner and his blood relatives were collected. Evidence was
collected for affinity test.
(f) During the enquiry the P. V. Cell noticed some entries of
‘Koli’ tribe, while interpolation was noticed in respect of Tribe
name in the tribe column of some record. The P. V .Cell submitted
its report to the Committee on 30-05-2025.
(g) The vigilance report was served on the Petitioner inviting
him for hearing and to submit his written explanation, if any, in
respect of the findings in the report. The contrary record was also
made known to the Petitioner.
(h) Accordingly, the Petitioner submitted his written
explanation and attended the hearing.
(i) The Petitioner submitted that (i) the P. V. Cell submitted
vigilance report on the basis of the report that was submitted in
his father’s case; (ii) the contrary record is not served upon him;
(iii) the contrary record might have occurred due to illiteracy of
his ancestors; (iv) he disowned liability of interpolation in some
6 WP 12660 2025
tribe record where the word ‘Mahadeo’ has been inserted in
different ink.
(j) The Petitioner claimed validity on the principle of parity
citing Five validities standing in the names of his close blood
relatives as mentioned above.
(k) The Committee considered the entire material and record
placed before it. It also considered the claim and justification
offered by the Petitioner. The committee concluded that record
procured from the government offices had more probative value.
It further recorded that there were strong and numerous contra
entries against Petitioner’s claim, and also there was interpolation
in the caste/tribe column of some close blood relatives whereby it
was sought to create record of tribe as ‘Koli Mahadeo’. The
committee also recorded its findings that the claim was filed on
the basis of bogus documents and record, there was fraud by
suppressing invalidation of the close blood relatives, and thus the
claim came to be rejected.
5. Petitioner’s submissions:
(a) At the outset Mr. Amey Sabnis, learned advocate for the
Petitioner clarifies that although there is difference in the record
showing surname as Koli at some places and Aadatrao at some
7 WP 12660 2025places, change in the surname from Koli to Aadatrao is done by
proper procedure and by giving publication in official gazette.
(b) Mr. Sabnis, would heavily place reliance on the five validity
certificates of his close blood relatives (supra). He would submit
that in the catena of judgments passed by this Court and the
Honorable Supreme court, the Committee erred in not granting
validation in the principle of parity. That, the Committee
committed serious error in disbelieving those validities merely for
want of supportive affidavits of those validity holders.
(c) It is the further contention of the Petitioner in continuation
of this first limb of argument that, the Committee even erred in
discarding those validity doubting it’s merit.
(d) Mr. Sabnis submits that since the interpolated record is not
coming from Petitioner’s custody but was forming part of some
office record, the Petitioner must not suffer the same. He would
submit that neither the Petitioner has created the said record nor
he had any control over the maintenance and preservation of
those documents.
(e) It is further contended by learned advocate for the
petitioner that the most crucial and disputed entry of his cousin
grandfather namely Vyankat Hanmant Aadatrao was never
verified by the Committee nor was made available to the
8 WP 12660 2025
Petitioner to reply on it. He would submit that committee didn’t
refer this entry in the earlier validations granted to his close
relatives. He would submit that the Committee has utterly failed
to follow the principles of natural justice.
(f) The Petitioner claims ignorance of the invalidation of his
close relatives namely Waman Dasharath Aadatrao, Mahadeo
Dashrath Aadatrao, and Somnath Dashrath Aadatrao. He would
submit that his ignorance can not be termed as suppression of fact
or any fraud played on the Committee.
(g) It is submitted that his close relatives namely Sachin,
Dnyanoba and Vinod Aadatrao have been granted conditional
validity by this Court. Hence, the same relief be granted to the
Petitioner.
(h) Reliance placed by the Committee on the revenue record of
Petitioner’s close blood relatives is objected by the Petitioner.
Learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Committee
ought to have conducted independent enquiry in respect of the
said revenue record. For want of this exercise, Committee’s
findings as regards to the revenue entries can not be accepted.
(i) Mr. Sabnis’s last objection to findings of the Committee
recorded at Paragraph No.7 of its decision and order. He would
accept that the validities relied upon by him were issued during
9 WP 12660 2025
the era of Mr. V. S. Patil. It’s a matter of record that a judicial note
was taken of Mr. Patil’s doubtful activities and serious
objectionable decisions taking departure from the law and the
procedure. Mr. Sabnis would submit that still fact remains that
those validities still hold field, and hence the Committee was
under obligation to consider the same.
(j) Learned advocate for the petitioner relies upon a Judgment
and Order delivered by full bench of this Court in the case of Anil
Bandawar Vs. District Caste Certificate Verification Committee,
Gadchiroli and another reported at 2021(5) Mh.L.J. 345. He
would submit that in the light of the observations made by this
Court in the cited case, no case of fraud could be made out against
the Petitioner.
With these grounds of objection, learned advocate for the
Petitioner prays to allow the Writ Petition in terms of the
prayers.
6. Submission by respondents:
(a) Mrs. J. P. Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader
strongly opposes the Writ Petition. Rather, she would support the
findings recorded by the Committee.
(b) Learned Assistant Government Pleader has taken us to the
original file of the Petitioner before the committee. She would
10 WP 12660 2025point out that it was a clear case of suppression of material facts.
That, the suppression is not a casual suppression – but it is about
invalidation of claims in the name of the close relatives of the
Petitioner.
(c) Mrs. Reddy would vehemently argue in respect of the
manipulated oldest record of Vyankat Aadatrao. She would submit
that the Vigilance Officer collected the exact documents from the
concerned school wherein clear interpolation as regards to the
entry of tribe is seen. She submits that a single fraud would vitiate
the entire claim.
(d) Learned Assistant Government Pleader further refers to the
constant contrary entries as ‘Koli’ in respect of the close blood
relatives of the Petitioner, and would submit that the explanation
offered by the Petitioner can not be counted for validating
Petitioner’s claim.
As such, learned Assistant Government Pleader stands by
the findings and reasoning recorded by the Committee, and prays
to dismiss the Writ Petition.
7. Discussion and consideration-
We heard learned advocate for the Petitioner and the
learned Assistant Government Pleader at length. We also perused
11 WP 12660 2025
the original file produced before us. On the basis of the record
produced before us we proceed to deal with the matter.
7.1 Contrary Entries and suppression of facts
I. The committee considered following Five tribe records of
Petitioner’s close blood relatives. This record was procured by the
Police Vigilance Cell during vigilance enquiry.
No. Name Relation Record Caste Record
With record year
Applicant
1 Daji Yashwant Aadatrao Cousin School Koli 1954
grandfather record
2 Dashrath Hanumant Aadatrao Grandfather School Koli 1954
record
3 Shivaji Yashwant Aadatrao Cousin School Koli 1957
Grandfather record
4 Shahaji Hanmant Koli Cousin School Koli 1958
Grandfather record
5 Bankat Hanmant Aadatrao Cousin School Koli 1965
Grandfather record
II. Interestingly, in the genealogical tree drawn on oath and
produced before the Committee by the Petitioner, he didn’t
mention the aforesaid record of his blood relatives. Rather
he didn’t describe them in the genealogical tree itself.
However, in the said genealogical tree, the Petitioner relies
upon a validity granted to Vyankat’s grandson namely
Manoj S/o Dnyanoba.
12 WP 12660 2025
III. The Police Vigilance Cell, in its investigation found that the
Petitioner suppressed the family history and the
relationships. From the wing of Hanmant, only Vyankat was
shown as the only son. Three other sons and one daughter
of Hanmant were not shown by the Petitioner.
IV. Likewise, names of two cousin grandfather and one cousin
grand aunt are also not shown in the affidavit filed by the
Petitioner. It is pertinent to note that Sr. No.1 – Daji
Yashwant and Sr. No.3 – Shivaji Yashwant are Petitioner’s
cousin grandfathers whose names are suppressed, and
whose school record of 1954 and 1957 is of ‘Koli’.
V. Name of Vyankat s/o Hanmant is shown because the
Petitioner relied upon the validity granted to Vyankat’s
grandson namely Manoj s/o Dnyanoba s/o Vyankat.
VI. Suffice to note, during the hearing of the Writ Petition the
Petitioner produced another detailed genealogical tree
wherein now he shows those suppressed names, and
unequivocally admits the relationship. He however denies
suppression and claims ignorance.
VII. In no case it can be accepted that Petitioner was ignorant of
the names of his first cousin grandfathers and grand aunt.
The tribe record of 1954 and 1957 is against Petitioner’s
13 WP 12660 2025
case. The name of other similar relatives are however
referred in the genealogical tree produced before the
committee.
VIII. Same is the case with Sr. Nos.2, 4 and 5 in the table. Their
names are not shown in Petitioner’s affidavit. Their school
record of 1954, 1958 and 1965 respectively shows their
caste as ‘Koli’. After the Committee recorded its findings
against the Petitioner, now during the Writ Petition hearing
the Petitioner shows their names vide an additional detailed
family tree.
IX. We are constrained to note that the Petitioner exercised
‘pick and choose’ formula while producing the relationships
before the Committee. Obviously, this was done to get
validation from the Committee placing reliance only upon
the chosen evidence. It is only when the observations of
fraud and suppressions are recorded, the relationship is
accepted and produced during the course of hearing in the
Writ Petition.
X. Hence, we are in agreement with the findings of the
Committee that Petitioner’s claim suffers on two counts i.e.
serious contra entries of close blood relatives and fraud by
suppression of material fact.
14 WP 12660 2025
7.2 Validities relied upon by the Petitioner
Now we turn to the validities relied upon by the
Petitioner.
XI. The Petitioner has firstly placed reliance upon an order
passed by this court in Writ Petition No.11351 of 2021 filed
by one Neha Nagnath Koli and another. The said Writ
Petition was filed for directions to issue ‘Tribe Certificate’.
Expressing acute reluctance to entertain the Writ Petition,
this Court directed the concerned Sub Divisional Officer to
issue ‘Tribe Certificate’ (Form-C) to the petitioners therein.
It was not a case of Tribe Validation Certificate. Hence, the
said order is of no avail to the Petitioner.
XII. The Petitioner then relied upon true copies of Tribe
Validation certificates granted by the Committee to
following persons.
No. Name D/o validity
01 Manoj Dnyanoba Aadatrao 10-10-2011
02 Dilip Raghunath Aadatrao 24-06-2011
03 Raghunath Tatya Aadatrao 24-06-2011
04 Deepak Raghunath Aadatrao 24-12-2008
05 Amitkumar Mahadeo Aadatrao 03-02-2011
15 WP 12660 2025
(a) The committee has observed that these are true
copies of the certificates alone. That, adherence to the
procedure u/r 11(2)(d) (iii) of the Maharashtra
Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and
Verification of) Certificate Rules 2003 [“2003 Rules”
for brevity] is mandatory. In the absence of
mandatory affidavits of those validity holders, those
shall be of no avail to the Petitioner. Rule 11(2)(d)
(iii) is reproduced below for ready reference:
11. Verification of Scheduled Tribe Certificate by
Scrutiny Committee:
(1)……
(2) The applicant shall submit the following
documents with his applications for verification of his
Scheduled Tribe Certificate-
(a)….
(b)…..
(c)…..
(d) Other documents:
(i)….
(ii)…..
(iii) Affidavits of the near relatives whose validity
certificates are submitted in support of the Scheduled
Tribe Claim of the applicant.
(b) The Committee also revealed from the files of those
validity holders that they too suppressed the adverse
16 WP 12660 2025entries in the genealogical tree, and have obtained
their validities by suppression of the material facts.
The committee also noticed that by suppressing
interpolation in the school record and also revenue
record of the blood relatives, those validity holders
have secured their validities. The committee also
found that despite close blood relatives of those
validity holders have suffered invalidation of their
claims, they filed false affidavits before the
Committee in compliance of Rule 2(a)(ii) of the 2003
Rules. The committee further recorded that those
validities were granted while one Mr. V. S. Patil
headed the Committee. This Court has taken
cognizance of the illegalities committed by
Mr. V. S. Patil and heavily criticized his decisions.
(c) The Committee reproduced the findings recorded by
this Court in the case of Prasad Paratwad vs. State of
Maharashtra and ors. [Writ Petition No.653 of 2023].
(d) For the reasons recorded above, the Committee
deemed it proper to rely upon the validities referred
above and relied upon by the Petitioner.
17 WP 12660 2025
XIII. We have cautiously given thought to the findings recorded
by the Committee while it disbelieved the validities referred
by the Petitioner. We are of the considered view that
committee didn’t commit any error in taking such view. We
agree that the subsequent committee is precluded from
taking another view on a validity granted by earlier
committee; but when there is glaring illegality noticed by
the Committee it is justified in not considering as a good
citation to pass further validity on the basis of such
validities.
XIV. We do not agree with the objection raised by Mr. Sabnis that
the Committee inasmuch reviewed the earlier validities
relied upon by the Petitioner. The objection is misconceived.
While deciding Petitioners’ claim, the committee has not
recalled those validities. The committee is absolutely within
its authority to evaluate evidentiary value of those validities
if there is glaring suppression of vital adverse record and
departure to mandatory procedure. So far as Committee’s
show cause notices to those validity holders are concerned,
it is true that at present Committee’s jurisdiction to re-open
a validity is pending before Honorable Supreme Court.
However, what we find that the Committee refused to rely
18 WP 12660 2025
upon those validities in the peculiar facts of evident
suppression of adverse entries, suppression of interpolation
of record, and giving go-by to the mandatory procedure. We
do not accept Petitioner’s argument that while the
Committee is presently injuncted from taking adverse action
against those validity holders, the Committee ought to have
granted validity to the Petitioner on the basis of those
questioned validities.
XV. Hence, for the reasons recorded above we are of the
considered opinion that the Committee didn’t commit any
error in not considering the validities relied upon by the
Petitioner.
7.3 Oldest school record of cousin grandfather
XVI. Learned advocate Mr. Sabnis was at pains to criticize
Committee’s findings as regards to the school record of
Petitioner’s cousin uncle namely Vyankat Hanumant
Aadatrao. Petitioner contends that School record of Vyankat
Hanumant Aadatrao pertaining to 1944 year shows his tribe
as Mahadeo Koli. The record is in Urdu language, and the
Petitioner produced its translation to rely upon.
XVII. The committee recorded that the vigilance squad visited the
Zilla Parishad school at Bembli, Tq. and District Dharashiv
19 WP 12660 2025
to verify the school record of Vyankat, by giving written
intimation to the Headmaster. The squad was allowed to
inspect the record admission No.526 pertaining to Vyankat
Hanumant Aadatrao. It was reported that only the entry of
Vyankat Hanumant Aadatrao is reduced at the end of the
page in different ink and with different handwriting.
XVIII. We have considered Mr. Sabnis’s objection that neither the
vigilance officer nor the Committee are the experts by
themselves to hold that the said entry is manipulated or
fabricated. That, the Petitioner has absolutely no control
over the said school record nor he can be blamed for such
interpolation, if any.
XIX. It is also contended that the said entry has been considered
all the while in the cases of the validities granted earlier by
the Committee to his close blood relatives. That, it is not
justifiable for the Committee to examine the said record
again and discard the same while it has already accepted
the same.
XX. We have given thoughtful consideration to this objection. As
discussed above, the validities granted to Petitioner’s close
blood relatives are based upon this very school record of
Vyankat for year 1944. If the Committee suspects or doubts
20 WP 12660 2025
credibility of any documents relied upon by the Petitioner, it
is bound to carry further or deeper investigation.
Transparency of facts, authenticity of record and credibility
of documents can never be compromised while validating a
caste/tribe certificate validation claim. Rather, the
Committee falls deficit in discharging it’s duty if it fails in
applying this principle while deciding a claim.
XXI. Investigating the school record of Vyankat Hanumant
Aadatrao can not be said to be beyond jurisdiction of the
vigilance officer nor consideration to it by the Committee to
such investigation can be said beyond its jurisdiction. True
that the school record of Vyankat is of 1944 i.e. pre
constitution period, however except Vyankat every pre
constitution record belonging to other blood relatives of the
Petitioner holds their caste record as ‘Koli’, not Mahadeo
Koli. Moreso, during vigilance enquiry it has come on record
that in Vyankat’s record the entry is in different handwriting
and different ink.
XXII. For reasons recorded above, we do not find that the
Committee erred in disbelieving the school record of
Vyankat Hanumant Aadatrao.
21 WP 12660 2025
7.4 Affinity test
XXIII. We agree with the submission of Mr. Sabnis, learned
advocate for the Petitioner that affinity can not be a sole
ground for rejection of validity claim.
XXIV. However, in the case in hand the Committee has not
invalidated Petitioner’s claim solely on affinity test. We too,
have not considered affinity issue to test Petitioner’s case.
Rather, we have examined Committee’s findings as recorded
above.
(l) As recorded above, the petitioner has placed reliance on the
observations made by the full bench of this Court in the case of
Anil Bandawar (supra). In the cited case, it is held that the
Committee had no jurisdiction to re-open an earlier granted
validity (Paragraph No.6).It is further held that while neither the
show cause notice nor the cancellation order alleges fraud played
by the Petitioner; merely because the Petitioner didn’t refer old
adverse revenue entries, it won’t constitute fraud. It was further
observed that while the vigilance agency had an opportunity to
search and investigate the said revenue entries, on account of
failure of the Petitioner to refer those entries it can not be said
that the petitioner committed fraud.
22 WP 12660 2025
(m) With due respect, we find that facts of present case are
altogether different. The record relied upon by the petitioner is
found to be interpolated and manipulated. Committee has
observed that placing reliance upon such document with an object
to receive validation does amount to fraud. In the vigilance
enquiry, the vigilance officer investigated the said record and
reported that the said record was not truthful, but was fabricated
one. We find that the reliance is misplaced.
(n) The facts discussed above tempts us to refer what the
Honorable Supreme Court has observed while discussing ‘fraud’ in
the case of Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported at (2005)7 SCC 605.
Their Lordships have observed thus:
9. By “fraud” is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is
from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill
will towards the other is immaterial. The expression “fraud”
involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived.
Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation
of property, whether movable or immovable or of money and it
will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or
non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will
almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in
those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the
deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second
condition is satisfied. [See Vimla (Dr.) v. Delhi Admn. [1963 Supp
23 WP 12660 2025
(2) SCR 585 : AIR 1963 SC 1572] and Indian Bank v. Satyam
Fibres (India) (P) Ltd. [(1996) 5 SCC 550] ]
10. A “fraud” is an act of deliberate deception with the
design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of
another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a
cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] .)
11.”Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act.
Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either
by letters or words, which induces the other person or authority to
take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of
the former either by words or letters. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent
misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against
fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists
in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing
him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party
makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury
ensues therefrom although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud
on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with
a view to deprive the rights of others in relation to a property
would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception
are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not
amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and
any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by
the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata.
(See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi [(2003) 8 SCC 319] .)
12. In Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros. [(1992) 1 SCC 534] ,
it was observed as follows : (SCC p. 553, para 20)
“Fraud” and collusion vitiate even the most solemn
proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a
concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a
fraudster to Milton’s sorcerer, Camus, who exulted in his ability
to, “wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares”.
It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster’s
24 WP 12660 2025
Third New International Dictionary “fraud” in equity has been
defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one
person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or
which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to
another. In Black’s Law Dictionary, “fraud” is defined as an
intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another
in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to
him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter
of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so
that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford
Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false
representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or
trick. According to Halsbury’s Laws of England, a representation is
deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it
was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17
of the Contract Act, 1872 defines “fraud” as an act committed by a
party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From the
dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of the
deliberate active role of the representator about a fact, which he
knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee
by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become
fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false. In a
leading English case i.e. Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) All ER Rep 1 :
(1889) 14 AC 337 : 61 Lt 265 (HL)] what constitutes “fraud” was
described thus : (All ER p. 22 B-C)
“Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation
has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or
(iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false.”
But “fraud” in public law is not the same as “fraud” in
private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish “fraud” in
commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in
administrative law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in
Khawaja v. Secy. of State for Home Deptt. [(1983) 1 All ER 765 :
1984 AC 74 : (1982) 1 WLR 948 (HL)] that it is dangerous to
25 WP 12660 2025
introduce maxims of common law as to the effect of fraud while
determining fraud in relation of statutory law. “Fraud” in relation
to the statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the
provisions of a statute.
” ‘If a statute has been passed for some one particular
purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which
may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else
which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope.’ Present
day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power
or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping
the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by
adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous
or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or
administrative law, as it is developing, is assuming different
shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of
incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of
power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must
result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have
been exercised. That is misrepresentation must be in relation to
the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence
of which power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not
required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud.
Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does
not vitiate the agreement. ‘In a contract every person must look
for himself and ensure that he acquires the information necessary
to avoid bad bargain.’ In public law the duty is not to deceive.”
(See Shrisht Dhawan v. Shaw Bros.[(1992) 1 SCC 534] , SCC p.
554, para 20.)
13. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently
by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal [(2002) 1 SCC 100 :
2002 SCC (L&S) 97] , Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education [(2003) 8 SCC 311] ,Ram
Chandra Singh case [(2003) 8 SCC 319] and Ashok Leyland Ltd.
v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1]
14. Suppression of a material document would also amount
to a fraud on the court. (See Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar
26 WP 12660 2025
Family Trust [(1996) 3 SCC 310] and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu
case [(1994) 1 SCC 1] .)
15. “Fraud” is a conduct either by letter or words, which
induces the other person or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former
either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it
can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav case
[(2003) 8 SCC 311] .
16. In Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702 :
(1956) 1 All ER 341 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)] Lord Denning
observed at QB pp. 712 and 713 : (All ER p. 345 C)
“No judgment of a court, no order of a minister, can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
everything.”
In the same judgment Lord Parker, L.J. observed that fraud
vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a
degree of solemnity. (p. 722) These aspects were recently
highlighted in State of A.P. v. T. Suryachandra Rao [(2005) 6 SCC
149 : (2005) 5 Scale 621] .
(o) On the same line, the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Indian Oil Corporation ltd. Vs. Dattatray More and ors.
(Review Petition St.No.3185 of 2020 in Writ Petition No.802 of
2015) observed thus:
8. ……………… In order that the doctrine of fraud is applied,
there must be suppression of facts or documents and those facts or
documents must be so important and so material that in the
absence of those facts or documents no effective decision could be
made or if made, it would be patently unjust. In other words, the
27 WP 12660 2025suppression must be of material facts or documents and only
those facts or documents are material which have the potential to
alter the decision or change the perspective of the decision, if
brought on record by disclosure or filing.
7.5 Conditional validity
(p) We do not subscribe to the arguments of Mr. Sabnis,
Petitioner’s learned advocate that once there is one validity in
Petitioner’s relative, the Petitioner is ipso facto entitled for validity
or atleast for conditional validity.
(q) Learned advocate for the Petitioner relied upon order dated
17-03-2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5048 of
2024(Sachin Aadatrao Vs. State and ors.), Writ Petition No.15006
of 2023 (Vinod Aadatrao Vs.State and ors.), and Writ Petition
No.5139 of 2024 (Dnyanoba Aadatrao Vs. State and ors.).
Validities of those petitioners were declined by the Committee,
hence they were before this court. Reliance was also placed on
other validity granted to relatives. The cited validities were sought
to be opened by the Committee, and they were protected by
interim orders on the point of Committee’s jurisdiction to review
already granted validities. No case of fraud or suppression of
material facts as is evidenced in this case was argued or even
28 WP 12660 2025
placed before the Court. Hence this Court granted conditional
validity to those petitioners.
(r) We have gone through the cited order. With due respect to
the order, we find that the facts of the case in hand are quite
different from the cited case. The course adopted by the Petitioner
blatantly showed that he has not approached the Committee with
clean hands. We are of the opinion that in the given
circumstances, the observations made by this Court in its latest
pronouncement in the case of ‘Ashish Sawant Vs. Jalindar Khaire
and ors. reported at 2025 DGLS (Bom.) 1715 (WP/13548/2024)’
would perfectly apply. At paragraph Nos.8 to 12 it is observed
thus:
8. At the very outset, we find ex facie that, the
Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean
hands. It is well settled that the party who invokes
the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is
supposed to be truthful, frank and must necessarily
disclose all the material facts without any
reservation, even if they are against such party. It is
not open to a Party who seeks equity to play “hide
and seek” or to “pick and choose” certain facts and
to suppress and/or conceal other facts. These
principles are categorically laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited & Ors. reported in (2008)
12 SCC 481. In the present case the Petitioner’s
conduct indicates an attempt to perpetrate a fraud
on the Court. On that ground alone, the Petitioner is
disentitled to any relief.
29 WP 12660 2025
9. In our view, the present Petition is nothing but a
speculative attempt and appears to be a clear
instance of chance litigation. The averments made
are self-contradictory. On the one hand, in
paragraph 12 of the Petition, the Petitioner contends
that Respondent No.4 passed the impugned Order
without affording him an opportunity of hearing; yet
contradictorily in paragraph No.8, he admits that,
hearings were conducted on multiple dates.
10. The reliance placed by learned Advocate Mr.
Gavnekar in the case of Apoorva’s case (supra) is
misplaced. While the judgement holds a contrary
view taken by a subsequent Committee, in itself may
not invalidate an earlier caste validity certificate, it
also categorically lays down that if the earlier
certificate was obtained by fraud, the Committee
dealing with the subsequent claim is neither bound
to follow the earlier caste validity certificate nor
precluded from rejecting the claim. In such
circumstances, the Committee is also empowered to
initiate appropriate action against the Applicant.
11. The reliance placed by Mr. Patil on the decision
in Raju Ramsing Vasave vs. Mahesh Deorao
Bhivapurkar & Ors. reported in (2008) 9 SCC 54 is
squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
12. In our view, the Petitioner has attempted
to take undue advantage of a caste certificate
procured through fraudulent means. Such conduct is
wholly and brazenly inconsistent with the
constitutional ethos and amounts to nothing short of
a constitutional fraud. The Petitioner’s action strike
at the very foundation of the affirmative action
framework envisaged under the Constitution.
(s) We are of the considered view that conditional validity is
not a general rule, it is an exception. We are well guided by the
earlier orders and views expressed by this Court, that where there
is component of evident fraud or suppression or misrepresentation
30 WP 12660 2025
of material fact, this court would be sloth to grant conditional
validity. If fraud, suppression of determining factors is noticed in a
validity claim, the Petitioner would not be entitled for any equity
vide interim relief of conditional validity.
(t) We deprecate mixing of two different issues i.e.
committee’s power to review its own order, and Petitioner’s case
on its own merits. Excluding Petitioner’s own conduct of
suppression of vital facts and placing incorrect record before the
Committee; the Petitioner shall not be entitled for the conditional
validity as a precedent. We are cautious not to comment on the
merits of the validities which are sought to be re-opened by the
Committee; for the reasons that the issue is sub-judice at present.
8. Conclusion :
The incomplete genealogical tree, the affidavit declaring no
invalidation in close blood relatives, suppression of close blood
relatives’ invalidation etc. all have been in the process of securing
tribe certificate validation. Each factor is of such vital nature and
importance that it had effect on the decision of the Committee
either to grant validation or invalidation. Choosing only one
cousin grandfather and hiding his three real brothers explicitly
show ‘pick and choose’ formula adopted by the Petitioner. This is
because chosen cousin grandfather’s grand son has got validity,
31 WP 12660 2025while all the record of those hidden three real brothers (of cousin
grandfather) pertains to ‘Koli’ caste. The plea of ignorance is not at
all acceptable in the light of the nature of relationships, the choice
of relationship presented before the committee, the conduct of
avoiding description of relatives whose caste records and validities
are adverse, and deliberately filing false affidavits to the effect
that there were no invalidities in paternal side, despite there being
three invalidities etc. leaves no room for doubt that this was with
dishonest intention to secure validation.
Thus, we find that-
(i) There is deliberate suppression of invalidation of
close blood relatives;
(ii) The genealogical tree was consciously produced
suppressing such close blood relatives whose validity
claims were disallowed;
(iii) Genealogical tree was presented on affidavit in such a
way that it shall show only validity holder as close
blood relative;
(iv) Subsequent to the findings recorded by the
Committee exposing petitioner’s “pick and choose”
method by presenting favorable validity holder and
suppressing invalidated close blood relatives, the
32 WP 12660 2025Petitioner tried to come out of those by producing a
detailed genealogical tree during the course of
hearing in this Writ Petition;
(v) Suppression was not out of ignorance, but finds to be
mindful. In terms of the observations made by this
Court in the case of Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar
(supra), the Petitioner has committed fraud by
suppression which necessarily calls applicability of
the doctrine of vitiation;
(vi) Departure to comply the mandate of
Section 11(2)(d)(iii) of the 2003 Rules in avoiding
affidavits of the validity holder frustrates the claim.
9. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the considered
view that there is no error in the findings recorded by the
Committee while invalidating Petitioner’s tribe certificate
validation claim. Resultantly, Writ Petition fails. Hence we pass
following order.
ORDER
I. Writ Petition dismissed.
II. Rule stands discharged.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT J.]
PRW
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
