RUPALI KASHINATH SHIGWAN @ RUPALI AMOL JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU MINISTRY AND ORS

                                                                                    wp-10970-2026.doc

                      jsn
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 10970 OF 2026
         Digitally
         signed by
         JITENDRA
JITENDRA SHANKAR
SHANKAR NIJASURE
NIJASURE Date:
         2026.10.05
                            Rupali Kashinath Shigwan @ Rupali Amol …Petitioner
         13:41:28
         +0530
                            Jadhav

                                  Versus

                            State of Maharashtra & Ors.                      …Respondents
                                                              ----------
                            Mr. Surel Shah, Senior Counsel with Mr. Chintamani Kamlakar
                            Bhangoji with Ms. Mamta Erande and Vishwajit Sharma for the
                            Petitioner.
                            Mr. C.G. Gavnekar with Mr Rohit Parab for Respondent No.6.
                            Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the State.
                                                              ----------

                                                CORAM              : R.I. CHAGLA AND
                                                                     FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
                                                Reserved on       : 10TH SEPTEMBER 2026.
                                                Pronounced on : 5TH OCTOBER 2026

                            J U D G M E N T:-
                            Per.:- R. I. CHAGLA, J.

                            1.           By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner is seeking the

                            quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order dated 10th August

                            2026, passed by the Respondent No. 2, District Caste Certificate

                            Scrutiny Committee, Raigad, District Raigad ("Scrutiny Committee"),

                            with further direction to Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee to

                            issue a Certificate of Validity in relation to the Caste Certificate dated

                                                                1/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

8th July 2016 issued to the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 5 - Sub-

Divisional Officer, Mahad, District Raigad ("Competent Authority"),

as belonging to "Kunbi", Other Backward Class ("OBC"). A further

prayer sought is for quashing and setting aside of the Order dated

18th August 2026, passed by Respondent No. 3 - Collector, Raigad,

disqualifying the Petitioner from the post of Councillor of the

Respondent No.4 - Municipal Council.


2.          The Petitioner had been granted a caste certificate by

Respondent No.5 – Competent Authority certifying that she belongs

to "Kunbi, OBC" on 8th July 2016.


3.          The Petitioner made an application to the Respondent

No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee for verification of her caste certificate.

The Petitioner had, along with the application, submitted the School

Leaving Certificate of her father from Zilla Parishad Primary School,

Pen, showing his caste as "Kunbi". The Petitioner had also produced

Form 14 of one Suryakant Tukaram Madhu Shigwan, whose caste

was shown as "Kunbi", stating that he is related to the Petitioner as

paternal uncle (father's cousin brother). Further, Form 14 of

Pandurang Narayan Rama Shigwan was also produced, claiming that

he is the Petitioner's grandfather, showing his caste as "Kunbi" dated

                                 2/26
                                                  wp-10970-2026.doc

27th February 1932.


4.          The election of Respondent No. 4 - Municipal Council

was held, and results were declared on 21st December 2025, in

which the Petitioner was declared to be the elected candidate as

Councillor from Ward No.8.


5.          The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee was, at the

hearing held on 15th January 2026, not satisfied with the documents

produced by the Petitioner and directed the Vigilance Committee to

inquire into the school records by addressing a letter to the

Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Primary School, Sub-Divisional Officer,

Mahad, to furnish the report.


6.          The Respondent No. 6 who was declared as defeated in

the said election and was complainant in the proceedings before the

Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny Committee produced the School Leaving

Certificate of the Petitioner's father showing his caste as "Hindu

Maratha". Further documents produced were the genealogy of

Suryakant Mahadev Shigwan, which showed that Suryakant was the

son of Tukaram, who was the son of Mahadu and Mahadu was the

son of Bhagoji. There was also a sworn Affidavit of Suryakant



                                3/26
                                                      wp-10970-2026.doc

Tukaram Shigwan produced, wherein he stated that the Petitioner's

father borrowed his caste certificate and used it in the genealogy tree

filed before the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee as he is

related to the Petitioner as paternal uncle.


7.          The Headmaster, Zilla Parishad Primary High School,

Pen, submitted a report to Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee on

28th January 2026, stating that the entry with regard to the leaving

certificate of the Petitioner's father in the register (Name of Student,

Birth Place and Birth Date) are matching, and in the caste column,

the caste shown is "Hindu Maratha".


8.          The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee decided on

22nd April 2026 to verify Form 14 submitted by the Petitioner's

grandfather through the Vigilance Cell and directed the Vigilance Cell

to submit a report by 29th May 2026.


9.          The Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate Office, Mahad,

intimated the Vigilance Officer on 21st May 2026 that Form 14

appears to be without re-writing, cancellation, and change of ink.


10.         The Vigilance Cell submitted its inquiry report to the

Respondent No. 2 Scrutiny Committee on 29th May 2026 after


                                  4/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

perusal of the original record in respect of the Form 14 - birth record

of grandfather of the Petitioner, observing that the said record is in

order.


11.         The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee took up the

matter for hearing on 5th June 2026, when the advocate for the

Petitioner as well as the advocate for Respondent No. 6 argued the

matter and made Written submissions. The Respondent No. 2 -

Scrutiny Committee observed on the basis of the arguments that

Form 14 of the Petitioner's grandfather should be re-examined

through the Vigilance Cell. Accordingly, the Vigilance Cell was

directed to submit a report of re-verification by 10th June 2026, and

that the same should be made available to the Petitioner and

Respondent No. 6 on 11th June 2026. The matter was accordingly

adjourned for hearing on 15th June 2026. The Tehsildar, Mahad, was

also directed to remain present along with the original Register

containing Form 14 on 15th June 2026.


12.         The Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee obtained the

report of the Tehsildar, Mahad, on 15th July 2026, which was

thereafter made available to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 on

17th July 2026, and they were directed to make submissions on the

                                 5/26
                                                      wp-10970-2026.doc

same.


13.         The Petitioner has submitted her say in writing on the

report of the Tehsildar. The respective say had been submitted on

20th July 2026.


14.         The Petitioner, her advocate, and Respondent No. 6 were

heard by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee on 6th August

2026, and the matter was closed for orders.


15.         By the impugned Order dated 10th August 2026, the

Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee accepted the complaint of

Respondent No. 6 and rejected the claim of the Petitioner of "Kunbi"

caste. The caste certificate dated 8th July 2016 issued to the

Petitioner by SDO, Mahad, was cancelled, and SDO, Mahad, was

directed to confiscate the cancelled certificate. Thus, the caste

certificate of the Petitioner had been invalidated.


16.         The Petitioner has accordingly filed the present Writ

Petition.


17.         Mr. Surel Shah, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny



                                  6/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

Committee, despite closing the matter for orders on 5th July 2016,

without recording any valid reasons for discarding the first Vigilance

Cell report dated 29th May 2026 and report of Tahsildar Mahad

dated 21st May 2026 in which the genuineness of the birth record of

the grandfather of the Petitioner was confirmed, called for a second

Vigilance Cell report dated 10th June 2026. He submitted that Rule

17(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 Rules, 2012 (for short ‘the said

Rules’), cast a duty due on the Respondent No.2 – Scrutiny

Committee to record reasons for discarding the Vigilance Cell report.



18.           Mr. Shah has placed reliance upon the judgment of this

Court in Ashwini Ramchandra Bhogam v. State of Maharashtra &

Ors.1, which considers Rule 17(7) of the said Rules and holds that

Rule 17(7) casts a duty on the Scrutiny Committee to record its

reasons for discarding the report of the Vigilance Cell. He has also

placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kranti

Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan2, which has held that reasons are
1   2017 (2) Mh.L.J. 53.
2      2010 (9) SCC 496.

                                 7/26
                                                      wp-10970-2026.doc

the backbone of any decision, be it administrative or judicial.



19.         Mr. Shah has submitted that the Order calling for a

Vigilance Report is based on a finding or a conclusion arrived at that

the documents submitted by the Applicant are insufficient to prove

his/her caste claim, and thus there is a requirement of application of

judicial mind backed by a decision.



20.         Mr. Shah has not pressed the submission on review viz.

that it is trite that the power of review is not inherent, but has to be

provided in the statute and in absence of such power, the Scrutiny

Committee could not have reviewed its decision to call for a fresh

Vigilance Report.



21.         Mr. Shah has submitted that the conduct of the

Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee in the present case needs to

be noticed. Twice the matter was closed for orders and twice it was

reopened without assigning any reasons for such reopening of the

matter.



22.         Mr. Shah has submitted that there is no explanation

                                 8/26
                                                                  wp-10970-2026.doc

sought from the Vigilance Committee or the Tehsildar as to why the

earlier reports, which indicated truthfulness of the entries in the

documents, have suddenly been found to be untrue, and a contrary

report has been accepted. He has submitted that it is dangerous to

rely upon such inquiry to non-suit the Applicant, when the same

officers of the Committee and Tehsildar in a span of a few months

change the reports.



23.            Mr. Shah has also placed reliance upon the decision of

the Division Bench of this Court (Nagpur Bench) in Dnyaneshwar

S/o. Shankarrao Dongare Vs. The Vice-Chairman/Member Secretary,

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati & Ors. 3,

wherein this Court has held that once the Vigilance Cell has admitted

the validity of documents in its first Vigilance Report there were no

reasons recorded as to why the matter was again referred to the

Vigilance Cell.



24.            Mr. Shah has further relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Vaishali Baban Dhumal v. State of Maharashtra4, which


3   Writ Petition No. 4237 of 2023 along with companion Writ Petition, Judgment dated
    11th August, 2025.
4    2023 (2) Mh.L.J.

                                         9/26
                                                       wp-10970-2026.doc

though holding that the Scrutiny Committee under the Rules has the

power to direct a re-inquiry even after submission of a report as per

Sub-Rule (6) of Rule 12 of the said Rules, but while doing so, the

principles of natural justice and fair play will have to be read into the

Rules to safeguard the interest of the Applicant. In any case, a re-

inquiry can never be on a mere ipse dixit of the Scrutiny Committee.

It is therefore necessary that while ordering a re-inquiry, the Scrutiny

Committee must spell out the reasons for such re-enquiry. If upon a

fresh report so submitted, the Scrutiny Committee is not satisfied

with the claim of the Applicant, necessitating it to issue a show cause

notice to the Applicant, then the Scrutiny Committee shall, along

with the freshly submitted report, also serve a copy/copies of the

earlier report/reports with the reasons for directing such re-inquiry to

enable the Applicant to make an effective representation to the show

cause notice in terms of Sub Rule (8) of Rule 12 of the said Rules.



25.         Mr. Shah has submitted that, in any event, the Petitioner

has in her possession an additional document in respect of the son of

her great-grandfather, viz. Rama Ambaji Shigwan, showing his caste

entry as "Kunbi" in the year 16th September 1893. This has been filed

along with an Additional Affidavit dated 29th August 2026 in these

                                 10/26
                                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

proceedings. He has submitted that this Court has taken a view that

when a pre-Constitution document is introduced by the Petitioner at

the stage of a Writ Petition challenging the invalidation of the caste

certificate of the Petitioner, the matter is required to be remanded

back to the Respondent Committee for reconsidering the Petitioner's

claim with an opportunity to place the additional document before it.

He has, in that context placed reliance upon the decision of this

Court in Shaila Baban Ranjane @ Shaila Balkrishna Kharat vs. State

of Maharashtra & Ors5.



26.              Mr. Shah has further submitted that though there is by

virtue of Amendment to 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

(Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001) which came into effect from

22nd July 2026 (“Amendment Act”), an appeal provided from the

decision of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste certificate

of the Petitioner, and which is under Section 6B of the Amendment

Act, which has come into force from 22nd July 2026, there is no

5     Writ Petition No. 2479 of 2013, Order dated 12th March 2019.

                                          11/26
                                                                   wp-10970-2026.doc

independent machinery provided to the Appellate Authority.



27.              This Court has taken note of this fact in Mr. Ashutosh s/o

Shivajirao Abhyankar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 6. It is held

therein that though it is shown that the Appellate Authority is

established, this Court finds that even otherwise, it is not shown that

any independent machinery is provided to the Appellate Authority,

nor have any rules or regulations, etc., till now been formulated. This

Court has expressed the hope that the Government thinks of

appointment of any forum consisting of presiding officers/members

having judicial background, and till such forum is established, the

present Writ Petition has been rightly filed before this Court.



28.              Mr. Shah has submitted that, accordingly, in view of the

pre-Constitution document which is now produced by the Petitioner,

the matter be remanded to the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny

Committee to reconsider the Petitioner's claim for validity of her caste

certificate, with an opportunity to place the aforesaid document on

record.




6     Writ Petition No. 10108 of 2026, Order dated 13th August 2026.

                                          12/26
                                                    wp-10970-2026.doc

29.         Mr. Kankal, the learned AGP appearing for the

Respondent-State, states on instructions that there are no SoPs issued

with respect to the Appellate Authority dealing with Appeals under

Section 6B of the Amendment Act, particularly in the case of

candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC) in the State

of Maharashtra. The statement is accepted.



30.         Mr. Gavnekar, the learned Counsel appearing for

Respondent No. 6, has submitted that during the course of hearing

on 31st August 2026, Mr. Shah for the Petitioner submitted that the

impugned Order had not been challenged on merits, but on the

ground that the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee erred in not

giving reasons for discarding the Vigilance Report dated 29th May

2026, which is in favour of the Petitioner. He has referred to the

Order passed by this Court dated 31st August 2026, which directed

the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee to produce the record

and proceedings which were before the Scrutiny Committee.

Accordingly, the Scrutiny Committee has made available the original

record, and particularly the noting made in Roznama on 5th June

2026. He has referred to the noting that the matter was closed for

decision after hearing the respective Advocates, and that after

                                13/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

considering the submissions made by the Advocate for the

complainant, the Scrutiny Committee was of the opinion that the said

document viz. Village Form 14, requires re-examination through the

Vigilance Cell. The Vigilance Cell was accordingly directed to submit

a fresh report by 10th June 2026. It was further directed that the said

report be made available to the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 6

– complainant, and the next date fixed which was 15th June 2026.



31.         Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that the Respondent No. 2 -

Scrutiny Committee has not set aside or discarded the entire report

submitted by the Vigilance Cell dated 29th May 2026, but directed

the Vigilance Cell to re-examine one of the documents, viz. Form 14

of the Petitioner's grandfather. He has submitted that the re-

submitted reports of the Vigilance Cell and the Tehsildar were made

available to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6, and they were

allowed to make submissions upon the same. He has submitted that

the Scrutiny Committee proceeded with caution by ordering the re-

examination of one of the main documents which, according to them,

required re-examination.



32.         Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that the Petitioner has

                                14/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

placed reliance upon Rule 17(7) of the said Rules and the decisions

which lay down that the Scrutiny Committee cannot render an order

rejecting the claim without recording the reasons for discarding the

Vigilance Report, which has favoured an Applicant before it. He has

submitted that these decisions are clearly not applicable in the

present case.



33.         Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that in the present case, the

Scrutiny Committee has not discarded the entire vigilance report but

sought further re-examination from the vigilance cell with regard to

one of the documents considering the submissions made before it.



34.         Mr.   Gavnekar    has   submitted    that   the   Scrutiny

Committee, on receiving the adverse report on the said document,

furnished the same to the Petitioner and called upon the Petitioner to

make her submissions on the same. These submissions by the

Petitioner were duly considered in the impugned Order. He has

accordingly submitted that it cannot be said that the Scrutiny

Committee has failed to rely upon the vigilance report without giving

any reasons.




                                15/26
                                                       wp-10970-2026.doc

35.         Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that it is apparent from

reading of the impugned Order that the Scrutiny Committee has

considered both the reports dated 29th May 2026 and 10th June

2026 and has also considered the say of the Petitioner on the reports.



36.         Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that in the Vigilance Cell

Report dated 10th June 2026, it is noted that during the course of

hearing, the Chairman and other members, in the presence of the

Superintendent of Police, observed that the Register be re-examined,

and not only with regard to the over writing by considering other

entries in the said register, so as to ascertain if there are any

infirmities found in the said Register. This clearly establishes that the

Committee, in consultation with the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

which constitutes the Vigilance Cell along with other police officials,

were consulted before directing re-examination of the said document.



37.         Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that the submission of the

Petitioner will result in nullifying the provisions in Rule 17, Sub Rule

(7), which provides “Findings recorded by the Vigilance Cell shall not

be binding on the Scrutiny Committee, as the Vigilance Inquiry is

meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny Committee”. He has

                                 16/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

submitted that when the finding of the Vigilance Cell is said to be not

binding upon the Scrutiny Committee, the Scrutiny Committee has

inherent powers to direct the Vigilance Cell to submit a further report

and if the contentions of the Petitioner are accepted, then in that

event, the aforesaid provision will be nullified.



38.          Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that the decision dated 5th

June 2026 of the Scrutiny Committee is strictly in accordance with

Sub Rule (7) of Rule 17 and the judgment relied upon by the

Petitioner, viz. Dnyaneshwar S/o. Shankarrao Dongare (Supra) , will

not help the Petitioner in advancing her case.



39.          Mr. Gavnekar has further submitted that the Petitioner

has sought to rely upon an additional document produced by way of

Affidavit dated 29th August 2026. The document is Form 14 relating

to the son of Rama Ambaji Shigwan, who is said to be the great-

great-grandfather of the Petitioner. He has submitted that in view of

the Amendment Act, the Petitioner has a remedy by way of Appeal as

provided in Section 6(B), which provides that an Appeal may be filed

within 90 days from the date of receipt of an order of the Scrutiny

Committee before the Appellate Authority, which is subsequently

                                  17/26
                                                                  wp-10970-2026.doc

specified by the State Government as Divisional Commissioner.

Further, Sub Section (3) of Section 6B provides that the Order passed

by the Appellate Authority shall be final and shall not be challenged

before any authority or court except High Court under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India.



40.             Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that the Amendment Act has

been interpreted in a judgment of this Court in Vishakha Sharad Raut

alias Vishakha Moreshwar Raut v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors 7.

This Court, in the said decision, has observed that the said

amendment has come into force on 22nd July 2026 and therefore,

the remedy of the Appeal now being available to the Petitioner, the

document can be permitted to be produced in the Appeal, if the

Petitioner chooses to decide to file the same by withdrawing the Writ

Petition.



41.             Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that in view the said

judgment, it must be observed that the Petitioner has incurred

disqualification as per Section 10(4) of the 2000 Act and she cannot

be permitted to continue her right to be a Councillor by virtue of the

7     Writ Petition No. 11625 of 2026 dated 2nd September 2026.

                                        18/26
                                                        wp-10970-2026.doc

impugned Order passed by Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee.



42.          Mr. Gavnekar has submitted that the extraordinary

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

contemplates a discretionary exercise of jurisdiction in favour of

those persons who have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with

clean hands and the claims therein are not aligned with production

of false or fabricated documents. He has submitted that in view of the

clear finding of Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny Committee with regard

to the caste of the Petitioner's father in the School Leaving Certificate,

viz. Hindu Maratha, the Petitioner cannot claim any benefits. Further,

the Petitioner has tampered with a genealogy tree by showing a

stranger, viz. Suryakant Tukaram Shigwan, as paternal uncle to take

advantage of his certificate. This has been proved in an Affidavit filed

by Suryakant Tukaram Shigwan before the Scrutiny Committee.

Accordingly, he has submitted that the Petitioner does not deserve

sympathy or discretion being exercised in her favour, and the Petition

deserves to be dismissed with costs.



43.          Having considered the submissions, it is pertinent to note

that the Petitioner has confined her grounds of challenge to the

                                  19/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny

Committee on the failure on the part of the Scrutiny Committee to

give reasons for discarding Vigilance Report dated 29th May 2026. In

this context reliance has been placed on Rule 17(7) of the said Rules.

However, this Rule provides that the finding recorded by the

Vigilance Cell shall not be binding on the Scrutiny Committee, as the

Vigilance Inquiry is meant for internal assistance to the Scrutiny

Committee. Thus, the Scrutiny Committee, can avail of the assistance

of the Vigilance Cell, and would, in our view, have inherent powers to

direct the Vigilance Cell to submit a further report in the event re-

examination of a document relied upon by the Vigilance Cell is

required. Otherwise, the whole purpose of the Vigilance Cell

providing internal assistance to the Scrutiny Committee would be

nullified.



44.          In the present case, we find much merit in the

submissions on behalf of Respondent No. 6 that the Respondent No.2

- Scrutiny Committee has not discarded the entire Vigilance Report,

but has sought re-examination from the Vigilance Cell with regard to

one of the documents i.e. after consideration of the submissions

made by the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No.6 before it.

                                20/26
                                                       wp-10970-2026.doc

45.         Further, the Respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has

considered both reports of the Vigilance Cell, viz. the report dated

29th May 2026 and the subsequent report dated 10th June 2026. The

Petitioner has been given an opportunity of having her say on both

the reports, and it is only thereafter that the Scrutiny Committee has

rendered a finding in the impugned Order viz. that Form 14 - the

birth record of the grandfather of the Petitioner is unacceptable. The

Scrutiny Committee has accordingly departed from their earlier view

taken by the Vigilance Committee based on the letter of the

Tehasildar dated 21st May 2026 and which confirmed that there is no

interpolation, over writing and change of ink in the said birth record.

This was upon reliance placed upon the subsequent Vigilance Cell

Report dated 10th June 2026.



46.         From a bare reading of the entry in Form 14 submitted

by the Petitioner's grandfather to the Vigilance Cell, it is evident that

there is re-writing, cancellation and change of ink. Thus, we do not

find any infirmity in the impugned Order of the Respondent No.2 –

Scrutiny Committee accepting the subsequent Vigilance Cell Report

dated 10th June 2026. Further, the Petitioner has been given ample

opportunity to give her say on the subsequent Vigilance Report and it

                                 21/26
                                                      wp-10970-2026.doc

is only after considering the say, that the Respondent No. 2 - Scrutiny

Committee, has invalidated the caste certificate of the Petitioner.



47.         It is further evident from the opening paragraph of the

said report dated 10th June 2026 that the Chairman and other

members, in presence of the Superintendent of Police, discussed the

issue of re-examination of the said From 14 and observed that the

Register be re-examined not only with regard to the over writing but

by considering other entries in the said Register in order to find out

whether there were infirmities in the said Register. This clearly

establishes that the Scrutiny Committee consulted with the Deputy

Superintendent of Police, which constitutes the Vigilance Cell, along

with other police officials, before directing the re-examination of the

said document.



48.         The judgment which has been relied upon by the

Petitioner viz., Ashvini Bhogar (Supra) is inapplicable in the present

case. In that case, this Court has considered that the Scrutiny

Committee had discarded the entire Vigilance Cell Report by failing

to record reasons for discarding the same. In the present case, there

is no such discarding of the entire Vigilance Cell Report, but merely a

                                 22/26
                                                        wp-10970-2026.doc

re-examination of one of the documents in respect of which there

was a finding in the earlier Vigilance Cell Report, and which finding

has been departed from in the subsequent Vigilance Cell Report upon

such re-examination. The Supreme Court in Kranti Associates

(Supra), relied upon by the Petitioner, has held that reasons are the

backbone of any decision, be it administrative or judicial. The

Scrutiny Committee in the impugned Order has given reasons for its

acceptance of the subsequent Vigilance Cell Report.



49.          Rule 17(7) of the said Rules provides that the Scrutiny

Committee shall record its reasons for discarding the report of the

Vigilance Cell. This would be applicable where the entire Vigilance

Cell report has been discarded. This is certainly not the position in

the present case as it is the finding in the earlier Vigilance Cell Report

in respect of one of the documents, which, on re-examination thereof,

has been departed from.



50.          The Petitioner has produced a document, (not been

placed before the Scrutiny Committee) by way of Additional Affidavit

dated 29th August 2026 viz. Form 14 relating to the son of Rama

Ambaji Shigwan, who is stated to be the great-great-grandfather of

                                  23/26
                                                    wp-10970-2026.doc

the Petitioner. We do not consider it appropriate in light of the view

expressed by us with regard to Form 14 submitted by the Petitioner’s

grandfather being fabricated, that any purpose will be served to

remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for considering the

document now sought to be produced. Although, an appeal has been

provided from the impugned Order of the Scrutiny Committee viz.

Section 6B of the Amendment Act, in view of the statement made by

the learned AGP on instructions of the Respondent - State that there

are no SoPs which have been issued with regard to the Appellate

Authority and as regards Appeals to be preferred by OBCs to whom

the Petitioner claims to belong, reliance cannot be placed on this

provision.


51.          The judgment of this Court in Vishakha Sharad Raut

alias Vishakha Moreshwar Raut(Supra) which holds that in view of

the Amendment Act having come into force on 22nd July 2026 and

the remedy of Appeal under Section 6B being available to the

Petitioner, the document now produced before the Court can be

permitted to be produced in the Appeal, will not be applicable in the

present case, in view of the statement of the learned AGP for the

Respondent – State with respect to Appeals to be preferred by OBCs.


                                24/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

52.         This Court in Mr. Ashutosh S/o. Shivajirao Amberao

(Supra) has observed that though the the Appellate Authority is

established, it is found that there is neither independent machinery

provided to the Appellate Authority, nor have there been any Rules or

Regulations etc. till now been formulated.


53.         The Petitioner, having not come with clean hands to this

Court by relying upon a fabricated document, as well as having been

found to have tampered with the genealogy tree by showing a

stranger, viz. Suryakant Tukaram Shigwan, as paternal uncle, is not

deserving of any indulgence of this Court, particularly with regard to

allowing a new document to be produced.


54.         We do hope that the Government takes active steps in

issuance of SoPs as well as formulation of Rules and Regulations for

redressel of grievances of the Orders passed by the Scrutiny

Committee, particularly in view of the appellate provision, viz.

Section 6B under the Amendment Act, and the Appellate Authority

having been established. It is further necessary to note that under

Sub Section (3) of Section 6B of the Amendment Act, it is provided

that an Order passed by the Appellate Authority shall be final and

shall not be challenged before any authority or Court except the High

                                25/26
                                                     wp-10970-2026.doc

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Given that there

is such Appellate provision, this remedy would be first required to be

availed of prior to coming to this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution.


55.           The deeming provision viz. Section 10(4) of the

Amendment Act provides that upon invalidation of the person’s Caste

Certificate by the Scrutiny Committee, the election of such person

“shall be deemed” to have been terminated retrospectively i.e. on the

date on which the person contested the election. Accordingly, in the

present case the Petitioner cannot claim continuation of her right to

be Councillor in view of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating her

Caste Certificate.


56.           We find no merit in the present Writ Petition. The Writ

Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as

to costs.


      [ FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J. ]               [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ]




                                 26/26