NAYKA VIJAYBHAI NANIYABHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/SCA/4001/2026                              JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4001 of 2026


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================

            Approved for Reporting               Yes          No

================================================================
                       NAYKA VIJAYBHAI NANIYABHAI
                                  Versus
                        STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TIRTH H SHAH(13975) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. NISHIT P GANDHI(6946) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS AKSHITA MOHUOT FOR AISHVARYA(8018) for the Respondent(s) No.
4
MR ADITYA DAVDA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                             Date : 23/03/2026

                               JUDGMENT


1.      Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda, waives service of notice of Rule for and on
behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and learned counsel Ms.
Akshita Mohuot, appearing on behalf of learned counsel Ms.
Aishvarya, waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the
respondent No.4.


2.      With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, the petition has been taken up for 'nal hearing
today.


                                 Page 1 of 5
     C/SCA/4001/2026                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026




3.      By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India read with the provisions of the Gujarat Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance
and Veri'cation of Caste Certi'cate) Act, 2018 (hereinafter be
referred to as “the Act”) petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs :

        “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a
        writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
        directions directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representations of
        the petitioner dated 24.03.2025 (At Annexure-C), 24.04.2025 (At Annexure-
        D) and 02.03.2026 (At Annexure-J) and pass appropriate orders as
        expeditiously as possible preferably within the period of 01 Month;

        (B) During the pendency and 4nal disposal of the present petition, YOUR
        LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to decide
        the representations of the petitioner dated 24.03.2025 (At Annexure-C),
        24.04.2025 (At Annexure-D) and 02.03.2026 (At Annexure-J) and pass
        appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible preferably within the period
        of 01 Month;

        (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and
        proper, in the fats and circumstances of the present case;”


4.      Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that, the
petitioner was one of the voters of ward no.4 in the election of
Chhota-Udepur Municipality, wherein, there were total 7 wards and
total 4 members in each ward were elected and out of the said 4
members in each ward, 1 seat was reserved for the members of
Scheduled Tribe category and thus, total 7 members were to be
elected from Scheduled Tribe category. That, the election was held on
16.02.2025 and the results were declared on 18.02.2025. That, from
ward no. 4, one Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli was elected from the
reserved seat for Scheduled Tribe candidate. That, the election for the
post of president from among the members of Municipality was held



                                     Page 2 of 5
   C/SCA/4001/2026                             JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026




on 05.03.2025 and said post having been reserved for Scheduled
Tribe Woman, said Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli was elected to the post
of president of Chhota-Udepur Municipality for the period of 2.5 years.
That, the said Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli had produced a false caste
certi'cate showing herself as Schedule Caste and therefore, the
petitioner made a detailed representation on 24.03.2025 and again on
24.04.2025, pointing out the said facts. That, as per the provisions of
Gujarat Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Veri'cation of Caste Certi'cates)
Act, 2018 and Gujarat Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and
Veri'cation of Caste Certi'cates) Rules, 2020 and Amendment Rules,
2025, the District Election O>cer was required to refer the Scheduled
Tribe Certi'cate to the scrutiny Committee, for obtaining the validity
certi'cate thereof. That, as per the provisions of law, and pursuant to
the application of the petitioner, the schedule caste certi'cate of
Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli was sent to scrutiny committee and the
same was registered as 'le no. 5652 as per the information provided
to the petitioner when he tried to inquire about the further
proceedings pursuant to his representation. That, one Asfakahmad
Makrani had also complained against Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli for
contesting election on the basis of bogus caste certi'cate before the
Prime Minister's O>ce which is registered as PMOPG/E/2025/0113778
on 04.08.2025 and the said complaint was also forwarded to
respondent no. 2 since August, 2025, which was also kept pending in
complete disregard to the mandatory statutory provisions. That, one
another person Nayka Anilbhai Karshanbhai also complained against
the use of bogus caste certi'cate by Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli in
the Municipality Election, to which the respondent no. 2 vide letter
dated 10.03.2025 informed that the caste certi'cate scrutiny by the
committee is under process. That, mandatory statutory provisions


                               Page 3 of 5
     C/SCA/4001/2026                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026




have not been complied with and therefore, petitioner again made a
representation         dated    02.03.2026          requesting    the    respondent
authorities to forthwith take decision as per Rule 11 of the Rules.


5.      Being aggrieved and dissatis'ed with the inaction on the part of
the respondent authorities, the petitioner has preferred this petition.


6.      Heard Mr. Nishit P. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Mr. Aditya Davda, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Ms. Akshita Mohuot,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Aishvarya, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.


7.      Learned counsel Mr. Gandhi has submitted that as per the
statutory mandate given in Rule 11(10)(a) of the Gujarat Scheduled
Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Veri'cation of Caste Certi'cates)
Rules, 2020 the Scrutiny Committee shall take decision of about the
claim of he applicant within such period not exceeding two months
from the date of receipt of an application and the Scrutiny Committee
shall communicate within one month from the date of decision of the
inquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant, however, in the
present case, though a period of almost 1 year has lapsed, the
mandatory requirements of Rule 11 have not been complied with and
no 'nal decision is taken by the Scrutiny Committee. He has
submitted that the petitioner inquired on various occasions and he
was informed that the vigilance cell was yet to give its report and
therefore, 'nal decision was not taken and thus, the respondent
authorities are trying to shelter the fraud committed by Manjulaben
Kishanbhai         Koli.   He   has     submitted        that    despite       several
representations and several follow-ups, the respondent authorities are


                                      Page 4 of 5
        C/SCA/4001/2026                                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 23/03/2026




not doing their statutory duty and have failed in discharging their
duty. Over and above the grounds agitated in the memo of petition,
learned counsel Mr. Gandhi has urged that the present petition be
allowed and the respondent authorities be directed to decide the
representations made by the petitioner.


8.         I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. Considering the
submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, present petition
is partly allowed. The respondents – Authorities are hereby directed to
decide the representations made by the petitioner within a period of 8
(eight) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Order in
accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, failing which, appropriate action shall be initiated against
the erring o>cer. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
           Direct service is permitted.



                                                                   (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

Dolly




 Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
 Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 25/03/2026 17:11:22


                                                    Page 5 of 5