NANDINI KAVIRAJ YELGULWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The group of matters raises a short, but we believe important, question. A frequent complaint in many of these Writ Petitions challenging orders of Caste Validity Scrutiny Committees invalidating caste or tribe claims is that the Committee in question impermissibly purports to exercise something akin to a suo motu review. Not only is the present application rejected but previously granted Validity Certificates are sought to be brought into question for various reasons.

(2.) On 13/1/2023 in Writ Petition No. 5497 of 2022 ( Rohan Subhash Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Anr,[Narshi Thakershi v Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844; Ram Sahu v Vinod Kumar Rawat, (2020) SCC OnLine 896; SREI Infrastructure Finance Ltd v Tuff Drilling Pvt Ltd, (2018) 11 SCC 470; Lily Thomas v Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; Vikram Singh v State of Punjab, (2017) 8 SCC 518; Surendra Mohan Arora v HDFC Bank Ltd, (2014) 15 SCC 294.]), we issued

(3.) Several matters have been clubbed together since and we have noticed similar orders in other Writ Petitions also.