WRIT PETITION NO. 8147 OF 2019

21st August 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R. K. Mendadkar
Respondent Counsel: Mr. B. V2 Samant Ms. Yogita Singh
Act Name: Constitution of India, 1950

Cases Cited :

JUDGEMENT

S. C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. The 4th respondent to this writ petition is really not concerned with the proceedings before the Scrutiny Committee. It has been impleaded because, having admitted the Petitioner to a degree course in its institution/college, on fnding that the Scrutiny Committee has refused the caste validity certifcate, it may cancel that admission.

3. The petitioners before this Court are paternal frst cousins. Their common ancestor, their paternal grandfather, was one Bharat Motiram Mandlik. His son is the father of the four petitioners. Jointly, these four petitioners approached this Scrutiny Committee set up at Nandurbar for issuance of Caste Validity Certifcates. They did so simply because they believed that to fulfl their dream and aspiration of educating themselves and obtaining admissions to higher educational courses in the State of Maharashtra, as tribals, they can seek admissions against seats reserved for the Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra.

4. The tribe in question is Koli Mahadev, a Scheduled Tribe. Claiming that they are belonging to this tribe and relying on the caste certifcates issued in that behalf, they were mandated to approach this Committee for a validation of their claim. The plain and simple meaning of this is that underlying claim has to be scrutinized and verifed by the competent Scrutiny Committee. In the scheme of Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 as also the Rules framed thereunder, these Committees perform a quasi-judicial function. In fact, one can safely say that as substitutes of Civil Courts they have larger obligation and duty to perform. They have, therefore, been conferred with very wide powers and in the process of scrutiny and verifcation of the underlying claim, they can take assistance of the police machinery as well. There is a vigilance cell attached to these Scrutiny Committees. The Vigilance Cell assists the Scrutiny Committees by conducting what is popularly known as a home enquiry. The persons who approach these Committees seeking validation of their claim set out the details in the form of a genealogy and family tree. They set out the addresses of the villages and remote areas which were inhabited by the ancestors and forefathers. The Vigilance Cell visits the village, the primary schools and other educational institutions, if any, attended by these forefathers and ancestors and satisfes itself as to whether such a family with the members whose details are relied upon resided in the villages or resided in the areas and obtained benefts meant for the tribals.

5. Needless to state that the status as Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe has been conferred after the Constitution of India and post-Independence. Therefore, pre-Independence documents have greater probative value. The presumption is that it would not possible to tamper with them or alter their contents easily, especially when they are in custody of public ofcials.

6. Apart therefrom, the object was not to visit with serious and severe consequences such claimants who are unfortunately not possessed of documents in relation to their ancestors. The presumption cannot be that every claim is false, bogus or not genuine. The presumption ought to be that when there is a caste certifcate issued, that Caste or Tribe Certifcate carries with it a presumption, albeit a rebuttable one. No claimant says that the presumption underlying a Caste Certifcate is conclusive or that the veracity, genuineness or authenticity thereof can never be decided in the process of scrutiny and verifcation of the claim. The claim as a whole of belonging to a particular caste or tribe has to be, therefore, ‘scrutinized’, but strictly in accordance with law and bearing in mind that this is a quasi-judicial, though not a completely judicial, function.

7. Yet, while the process is one of determining the authenticity, genuineness and veracity of the caste certifcate in question, and though vested with powers of enquiry and examination, these Committees do not have before them a ‘lis’ properly so called. This is no adversarial proceeding of the kind known to our civil courts. There is no original jurisdiction, nor even an appellate jurisdiction. The remit of these Committees, with all their powers of investigation, is a limited one. It is limited to a scrutiny, and this necessarily means an examination. What exactly is to be scrutinized, and how, is also well-known. The nature of fndings to be returned are also within well-established parameters and boundaries. Beyond these, no Scrutiny Committee may stray.

8. Given this, we expected to fnd these Committees acting responsibly. Instead, we have a truly alarming picture. There is no sense of regard to settled law, even binding decisions of this court. In that regard, we fnd all humility lacking in these members. The members of the Scrutiny Committee do not follow any discipline. They disregard orders passed by their brothers, saying that when these orders were passed and certifcates of validity were issued, a proper and thorough enquiry was not conducted. After a caste validity certifcate is issued to a member of the family from the paternal side, we do not know how this fnding can be returned by another Scrutiny Committee which is scrutinizing and verifying the claim of another member of the same family. Therefore, we have startling results. A daughter is held to be a tribal, but her father is not. A son is held to be a tribal, but his father is not. A father is held to be a tribal, but his children are not. These Committees are not in the least perturbed by logical failures or inconsistencies or inherent contradictions in what they fnd. This is most frequent in the claims forwarded to the Scrutiny Committees at Nashik, Nandurbar, in the Vidharbha or Marathwada regions, and the Western Maharashtra region of the State. How it is possible for these Committees to disregard and disrespect the fndings rendered and the conclusions reached by other Committees discharging identical functions has never been explained to us.

9. This prelude was necessary because in this case as well this course has been charted by the Nandurbar Committee again. The justifcation that is provided is that though the petitioners relied upon the caste validity certifcate issued to Arun Bharat Mandlik, the father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the real uncle of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4; a caste validity certifcate dated 19th October 2004 issued in favour of Parag Prakash Mandlik, the frst cousin of the petitioners (son of Prakash Bharat Mandlik, the real uncle of the petitioner); caste validity certifcate dated 28th March 2008 issued in favour of Vijay Bharat Mandlik, father of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and real uncle of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2; a caste validity certifcate dated 28th March 2008 issued in favour of Prakash Bharat Mandlik, the real uncle of the petitioners; and an afdavit duly and properly afrmed establishing and proving the relationship, the genealogy and family tree, still in the mission that the Committee undertook, it held against them. It did so on a solitary ground: that in this family, Bharat Motiram Mandlik was the paternal grandfather of all the petitioners. He was the father of the petitioners’ fathers. In his primary school leaving certifcate, a pre-Independence document, the caste was entered not as Koli Mahadev. There was a later insertion or correction. This was held by the Committee to be an interpolation or tampering in this certifcate dated 30th June 1945. Therefore, according to this Committee, all the certifcates of validity relied upon by the petitioners were automatically of no probative value. They had, therefore, to be discarded. It seemed not to matter one bit to this Committee that some of these certifcates on which the Petitioners relied were issued by binding judgments of this Court.

10. This reasoning is to be found in the Committee’s order. At Page 38 of the paper-book, internal page 12 onwards is this reasoning — and to call it that is according the Committee a generosity it neither deserves nor has earned —and it is fully summarized at page 42. This reasoning of the Scrutiny Committee in Marathi needs to be reproduced as-is, lest it be said that its translation distorted the picture. We reproduce the same for ready reference.
“lferhph fujh{k.ks
1- vtZnkj Ø- 1 rs 4 ;kaps vktksckapk ‘kkys; nLrk,sotkr lu 1937 o 1941 ;k o”khZp;k tkrhP;k uksan *vghj dksGh* *dksGh vghj* vkgsr o rs Lo;aLi”V vkgsr o *dksGh vghj* gh tkr brj ekxkl izoxkZr (SBC) lekfo”V vkgs2- vtZnkj Ø- 1 rs 4 ;kaps vktksck ;kaps ‘kkys; uksanh lu 1937 rs 1941 P;k vfgj dksGh] dksGh vghj Lo;aLi”V vlrkauk ns[khy vtZnkjkps lu 1945 e/;s Lfkkfud izHkkokus Bjkokus ‘kkys; iqjkO;k e/khy tkr uksanhr vfgj ‘kCnkoj dkV ek:u egknso vlk ‘kCn (Insertion) Vkdwu izFke *dksGh egknso* vlk ‘kkys; iqjkok r;kj dsyk3- Lku 1945 e/;s tkrhp;k uksanhr csdk;ns’khji.ks cny d:u izkIr dsysY;k *dksGh egknso* iqjkO;k vk/kkjs izLrqr pkjgh oS/krk/kkjdkauh rRdkyhu lferh o ek- mPp U;k;ky;kph fn’kkHkwy d:u o vkiyk [k&;k vlysY;k *vfgj dksGh* (SBC) tkrhph lR;rk yiowu oS/krk izek.ki=s feGfoyh vkgsr- gs] pkjgh oS/krk/kkjd o vtZnkj Øekad 1 rs 4 ;kaP;k izdj.kkarhy lknj dsysys nLrk,sot rlsp iksyhl n{krk iFkdkps pkSd’kh vgokykaps voyksdu dsys vlrk dsysyh yckMh fnlwu ;srs- R;keqGs vls yckMhus feGfoysys oS/krk izek.ki= vtZnkjkaps izdj.kh xzkg; /kj.ks ;ksX; gks.kkj ukgh4- vtZnkj Øekad 1 rs 4 o R;kaps dqVwackpk o oS/krk /kkjdkapk *dksGh egknso* vuqlwfpr tekrh’kh dqBY;kgh izdkjpk lkaLd`frd] lkekftd] okaf’kd vkIrHkko ukghvfgj dksGh o dksGh egknso gs nksUgh lewg ekuooa’k’kkL=h;] lkekftd&lkaLd`frd ckchae/;s fHkUurk vlwu dqBykgh vkIrHkko ukgh5- /kqGs ftYg;kr dksGh egksno terhph oLrh iqohZgh uOgrh o vkrkgh ukgh6- mifoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh] /kqGs] ft- /kqGs ;kauh fofgr fu;e o dk;n;kuqlkj vtZnkjkaps izdj.k u riklrk (By very casual manner) oMhyksikthZr *vfgj dksGh* (OBC/SBC) tkr vlysY;k vtZnkj Øekad 1 rs 4 ;kauk *dksGh egknso* tekrh izek.ki= fuXkZfer d:u dk;n;krhy rjrqnhapk Hkax dsyk vkgs-”

11. Now, it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the reasoning in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, reproduced above, cannot be sustained. The Committee saw that the petitioners’ grandfather attended a school, and in his primary school certifcation, the admission and school-leaving records, or the general registers maintained by such primary schools way back in the year 1937 and 1941, the entries in the caste column are Ahir Koli and Koli Ahir. The Committee enlightens us by saying that Koli Ahir is not a tribe or a scheduled tribe but it is a Special Backward Class.

12. Then it says that these entries were clear. How did the petitioners’ grandfather dare to approach the local school board? Under what authority were the earlier entries scored out, with, in 1945, an insertion Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe? The Committee said this was not explained to it. We will put it bluntly and plainly. The Committee is not entitled to any such explanation. It cannot call on a candidate in 2019 to explain an entry made in 1945 or earlier. The Committee is entirely in error if it feels it can go back into the 1930’s and 1940’s to fnd out whether there was any authority or jurisdiction in the gentleman who made these insertions or who cancelled the earlier entries and inserted the words ‘Koli Mahadev’ against the caste column. The Committee concluded that this substitution or alteration therefore has no support or backing of law, and this was got-up evidence or fraudulent. In fact, in our view, it is the Committee’s conclusion that has no support or backing of law.

13. What is far more interesting that what the Committee says is what it does not say. The committee does not say that the fathers of the petitioners who obtained the caste validity certifcates earlier are responsible for such alterations, insertions and depicts after 1945. In other words, there is no fnding returned that the petitioners or their fathers were responsible for any such alleged fraud. The members of the family are thus not prima facie guilty of any forgery or fraud. Undeterred by this gaping hole in logic and common sense, the Committee presses on regardless. It proceeds to hold that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts, and therefore these certifcates of validity in their favour lose all probative value. Once again the suppression of material facts is attributed to the certifcate holders by the reasoning which we have reproduced above. The reasoning is that all these certifcate holders whenever their claims were under scrutiny and verifcation did not point out to the respective Scrutiny Committees the records produced by the police/vigilance cell attached to these Committees. If the reports of the Vigilance Cell forwarded to these Scrutiny Committees had been produced and carefully perused then this suppression of relevant and material facts would be apparent to the Committee.

14. There is a fundamental error in this approach. The Committee has forgotten something vital. It has no lis before it. There are no adversaries. There is an investigation and a scrutiny. The Committee itself is not an adversary of the petitioners. It cannot behave as if it is one. The Committee seems to have taken the principle of fraud vitiates all, and instead of understanding its implications, goes about chanting it like some catch-all mantra. Fraud demands proof. It needs a pleading. Even if we say that in a situation like this, there can be no pleading, there must still be proof. Conjecture and surmise (“the 1945 alteration must have been obtained by fraud”) are no substitute for proof. It is one thing to say that a document is doubtful, or unreliable. It is quite another to say that it is obtained by illicit means without fnding anything further — who, when, where, how. More fundamentally, every alteration or change is not evidence of fraud. It is not even prima facie evidence of fraud.

15. The next error, and it is a most grievous one, is in paragraph 3, where the Committee says that we, or some bench of this Court, was duped or misled. Nobody in this Court says so. It is not for the Committee, subject as it is to our writ jurisdiction, to say that in some past case, based only on the Committee’s present errant exercise in conjecture and speculation, that a court of law, and that, too, the highest court in the State, was misled. This is far from innocuous, because what the Committee is actually saying is that previous orders of this Court that directed the issuance of validity certifcates to the petitioners’ family members are all non-est and vitiated as being obtained by concealment, misrepresentation and fraud. In saying this, even if only by necessary and ineluctable implication, the Committee is sailing very, very dangerously close to the wind. Its order verges on contempt of this Court by the Committee itself. This is a fnal warning. There will not be another. We have earlier had occasion to remove one Committee entirely. We will not hesitate to do so again.

16. In the other paragraphs of the so-called reasoning, namely paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, we see that the Committee has not learnt any lessons at all. It seems impervious to direction, instruction, and even admonition and stricture. Again, this is a fnal warning. This Committee is not the fnal repository of all wisdom, learning and knowledge, and the sooner it realizes that, the better. We say this because the committee opines that despite all the settled law on the subject, and though armed with certifcates of validity, the present petitioners/applicants before the Committee must establish and prove their socio-cultural afnity with Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe. Judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court are of no consequence to this Committee. It insists that the Ahir Koli and Koli Mahadev are two diferent communities having nothing in common in so far as socio-religious cultural traits, customs, practices etc. Therefore, the petitioners before us are held to failed this test.

17. It does not end there. The Committee then goes on to hold that residents of Dhule District, such as these petitioners, could never have made a claim to be from the Koli Mahadev Scheduled Tribe, for Mahadev Kolis were ‘never found’ in Dhule District. Now this fnding and conclusions are reached by relying upon what possibly is produced by a Research Ofcer attached to this Scrutiny Committee. The Research Ofcer is supposed to assist the Scrutiny Committee by producing anthropological evidence and data. Research in anthropology is a very specialized study. It is the very carefully researched and thoroughly prepared work of great anthropologists, but it is only intermittently and in bits and pieces relied upon by such Research Ofcers. They have never carried out any independent research nor have they collected any data scientifcally. It is one thing to say that this community was never residing in or found inhabiting Dhule District. It is quite another to wholly ignore whether members of this community have later inhabited these districts and particularly Dhule after members of this community educated themselves, obtain concessions and relaxations meant for tribals and thus secured government jobs or public employment which results in people being transferred into such Districts.

18. The Constitution of India is shortly going to complete 70 years. The tribal status already existed, but our Constitution gave it recognition and shape. The Constitution conferred powers in the executive and the State to grant relaxations and concession so that there is an upliftment and that untouchability, which was abolished by the Constitution, is in reality also wiped out from society. It is quite natural, therefore, that the members of such communities obtain these benefts, relaxations and concessions, educate themselves and after being fully equipped secure either public employment or hold public and elected ofces. During the course of all this they are bound to shift their residence and they are not expected to have a fxed place of abode. Tribals can and have come out of the jungles and remote areas inhabited in few districts in the State of Maharashtra and shifted their bases elsewhere. Their children cannot be thrown out from the whole process or excluded therefrom on the reasoning that in Dhule this tribe was never found. It is precisely for this reason that 42 years ago, and 26 years after the Scheduled Tribe Order of 1950, the area restrictions it placed were removed by a Parliamentary amendment of 1976. If the Committee does not know this, it has no business functioning as such and perhaps it is best that it go. If it does know, and we do not see how it cannot, then the Committee is incompetent, insubordinate, vindictive and not judicious, and for that reason, too, must go. The one thing this Committee simply cannot do is to say that the area restriction did not ‘override the law’ or to brush aside an amending act of Parliament made in 1976. Our Constitution not only afords protection to persons from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, but also guarantees, as a fundamental right, the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and to settle anywhere. The Committee cannot present applicants before it with a Hobson’s choice by saying that the applicants must pick one of these two fundamental rights. They are entitled to both. It is entirely impermissible for the Committee to only trace the tribe, fnd that tribe’s traditional or historical geographical roots, and place that against the applicants’ address and conclude that the claim is not genuine. This is not a judicious approach. It is not even a reasonable one. It is wholly contrary to law. It is perverse. It betrays a wanton non-application of mind. The Committee’s presumption is based on nothing at all. There is no anthropological research or scientifc data. Absent that, such sweeping conclusions in matter after matter has been adversely commented upon by this Court and that part of the reasoning has been struck down as being unsustainable. We do so again. Unmindful of our orders — or perhaps in deliberate and contumacious defance of them — the Committee continues to render such reasoning. We have therefore no hesitation in setting aside this reasoning in clauses 4, 5 and 6 reproduced above.

19. With regard to clauses 1, 2 and 3 the reasoning therein is clearly perverse. Mr Samant, learned AGP found it difcult to support it. He conceded that the proper course for the Committee would have been to initiate the process of cancelling these certifcates of validity relied upon and issued to others within the same family. That is a process concededly of issuing a show cause notice to these certifcate holders calling for their explanation, duly considering it and passing a reasoned order nullifying the earlier certifcates of validity. The Committee did no such thing. Mr Samant however submits that the Committee feels that it can straightaway ignore these certifcates of validity by returning a fnding of fraud. To say the least, in this case the fndings it returned are so superfcial and perfunctory that it is impossible to sustain them. The fndings ignore the facts. One of the certifcates of validity and issued in favour of the father of one of the petitioners is after a prolonged legal battle in this Court. It is very clear from the record that Pranav Prakash Mandlik is one of the certifcate holders. In this case the validity certifcate was refused by the Committee on 6th February 2014. Pranav was aggrieved and dissatisfed with this refusal and rejection of the claim. He approached this Court by fling Writ Petition No. 4224 of 2014. The Court, after a scrutiny and verifcation of the whole record, concluded that the certifcate of validity could not have been denied to Pranav when members and who are close relatives from the paternal side in the very family have been issued certifcates of validity. This Court found that Prakash Bharatrao Mandlik, Arun Bharatrao Mandlik, Vijay Bharatrao Mandlik and Parag Prakash Mandlik were very close relatives from Pranav’s paternal side. A diferent treatment to Pranav was, therefore, held to be ex facie discriminatory, arbitrary and perverse. Therefore, this Court held that the order of the Scrutiny Committee could not be sustained. It was set aside. The decision is reported: Pranav Prakash Mandlik v State of Maharashtra & Ors, 2015 (1) ALL MR 177; 2014 (6) Bom CR 200 : 2014 (6) Mh LJ 449. The Committee is aware of this decision. It chose to ignore it.

20. This Committee goes ahead now and opines that in Pranav Prakash Mandlik this court was misled. It feels that if this Court issued a validity certifcate to Pranav only by relying on the other certifcates of validity issued in the family, had this Court been apprised with the entries now said to have been allegedly tampered (Bharat Motiram Mandlik’s caste entries), then, possibly Pranav could never have succeeded.

21. It is not for the Committee to say anything of this kind. It is entirely in the realm of conjecture and surmise. How the Committee could, by these mental contortions, ignore a binding judgment of this Court and brush it aside so lightly is unclear to us. In fact, we told Mr Samant that another Division Bench of this Court could not have disregarded and disrespected this judgment delivered in the case of Pranav had that been relied upon by another member of the same Mandlik family. A diferent law or regime cannot apply to such a Committee.

22. Scrutiny committees are bound by the judgments of this Court and that of the Supreme Court. Article 141 of the Constitution of India says that the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. As far as the position and status of this Court is concerned, it is the highest Court in the state and is vested with plenary powers. It can issue prerogative writs and only it can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In exercise of that jurisdiction, when it delivers judgments interpreting provisions of law as also appreciating and appraising the facts and circumstances in individual cases, then, such judgments bind every single Court or Tribunal or Authority in the State. The Committee is no exception. The Scrutiny Committee should have realized that a Civil Court could not have delivered any judgment or order contrary to a binding decision of this Court. At least this elementary principle should have been noted by the Scrutiny Committee in the instant case.

23. However, Mr Samant with his persuasive ability says that the Committee thinks that Apoorva d/o Vinay Nichale vs. Divisional Caste Certifcate Scrutiny Committee No. 1 & Ors. Writ Petition No. 1504 of 2010 decided on 22nd July 2010, a reported judgment of this Court, 12010 (6) Mh.L.J. 401. allows the course or the option which this Scrutiny Committee has adopted in the present case. We do not think that Apoorva makes any such exception. It only reiterated the settled principle that fraud may vitiate everything from inception but fraud has to be established. It is only a proven and established fraud which will vitiate everything from inception and the principle of res judicata then has no application. It is only when a judgment or order is a product of fraud that it has no precedential value. This is in cases where a fraud is pleaded and proved. Apoorva Nichale was a case where taking assistance of an amicus this Court held that a certifcate of validity relied upon as a proof or a document having high probative value in another round of scrutiny and verifcation can be discarded or kept aside only when the same is vitiated by an underlying fraud. Fraud, therefore, and being of a serious nature together with misrepresentation of fact which also ought to be a deliberate and intentional act vitiates such certifcate of validity and even if it is issued to the father, in the case of a scrutiny of the son or daughter’s claim that can be ignored. However, the Committee must undertake the exercise of arriving and concluding a fraud. It has to arrive at the conclusion that a fraud has been perpetrated not only on the Committees but on the general public by snatching away benefts and concessions so also relaxations in public employment, education etc meant for genuine tribals.

24. It is that degree of fraud which would vitiate and we do not think that a stray observation or a stray sentence in an isolated paragraph in Apoorva Nichale’s case enables the Committee to ignore the certifcate of validity in this case. They are yet not termed as tainted or vitiated. That exercise is yet to be undertaken for it is not even initiated by the Committee so far. The Committee’s understanding of the judgments of this court is totally fawed.

25. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the Committee has in total defance of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court denied to the petitioners a certifcate of validity. In fact, even after the Scrutiny Committee have been visited with heavy personal costs, the lessons have not been learnt. In another adjudication of this nature, a Division Bench presided over by one of us had an occasion not only to pass strictures against the Scrutiny Committee members but direct their removal. In fact, the State accepted that verdict and removed the Committee members for their open defance and disregard of the orders and judgments of this Court. Judicial discipline has to be enforced and judicial discipline means not only the discipline within the higher judiciary but the discipline which enables this Court to ensure obedience and fdelity to its judgments, directions and orders. The judgments of this Court are not delivered only to grant relief to individual litigants. They are often cited as precedents because they lay down a legal principle or they interpret statutes or laws and which interpretation, therefore, unless upset by the higher Court binds all courts, authorities and tribunals within its jurisdiction. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India enables this Court to pass orders which will ensure that the command of this Court is not then ignored. This is the power conferred only in this Court and under that power the penalties were imposed. The orders as drastic as above were passed and we are constrained to now do that precisely in this case as well.

26. Member after member of this family be not forced to approach this Court again and again. If only one family member came to us, we might not have taken so drastic a view of the matter. But it did not rest there. Sons and nephews were given the same treatment by this Committee. In these circumstances, we would be justifed in imposing personal costs.

27. We allow this petition.

28. While we make the Rule absolute and quash and set aside the impugned order of the Scrutiny Committee, direct issuance of Caste Validity Certifcates to all the petitioners within two weeks from today but with a rider that should the Committee revisit the certifcates of validity which were issued to the family members/elders in the family and if these certifcates are recalled and set aside, then the petitioners would naturally be visited with the same consequences. Leaving that course and that option open for the Scrutiny Committee, we direct as above.

29. For the above noted acts of the Scrutiny Committee, we further direct payment of costs individually by each of the three members in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-. These costs have to be paid to the four petitioners, each of whom will receive one-fourth of the total amount of Rs.1.5 lakhs. These costs are to be paid within six weeks from today, failing which they shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The State Government shall not reimburse these members the costs. They must bear these personally, and make payment to the petitioners in terms of our directions.

30. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

31. Needless to clarify that our order directs issuances of certifcates of validity. Thus, drawing up of these formal certifcates and issuing them is going to take time. The 4th respondent, therefore, should treat the admissions of such of the petitioners who have been enrolled as regular and valid and allow them to attend classes, take examinations and if successful, issue the mark list and degree certifcate as well.