The court dismissed a petition challenging the decision of a scrutiny committee that cancelled a caste certificate claimed fraudulently by an electoral candidate. The petitioner, Pooja Manish Shah, also known as Taruna Sundar Bhandari, sought reserved category benefits under false pretenses. Despite multiple arguments and evidence presented by the petitioner, the court upheld the scrutiny committee's findings, citing discrepancies in the provided documents and statements. The case emphasizes the court's role in judicial review rather than appellate jurisdiction.

Introduction

A petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought to challenge the decision of a scrutiny committee dated January 16, 2003. The committee cancelled a caste certificate issued to Pooja Manish Shah, who had fraudulently claimed the identity of a deceased individual to obtain 'Reserved Category' benefits. The case was heard and dismissed by the court.

Background

The scrutiny committee investigated the electoral candidate’s certification and cancelled it, revealing fraudulent attempts. Despite the committee's findings, the petitioner challenged the decision in court. The petition argued that the scrutiny committee's findings lacked substantiation and that undue emphasis was placed on dubious documents such as the death certificate.

Petitioner's Arguments

Mr. Amrendra Mishra, representing the petitioner, argued that:

• The scrutiny committee's decision was based on a rival candidate's complaint.
• Family documents demonstrated the petitioner's belonging to the Hindu Bhandari community.
• Statements from the petitioner's family members were not duly considered.
• Discrepancies in the death certificates and undue emphasis on the petitioner's marriage and certificates issued were criticized.
• The scrutiny committee failed to consider police-recorded statements.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The court reviewed all documents and arguments and concluded:

• There was no perversity or omission in the scrutiny committee’s report.
• Family statements were contradictory and lacked credibility.
• The petitioner failed to provide satisfactory documentary evidence to prove her identity.
• School leaving certificates and marriage certificates presented were dubious.
• The Central Forensic Science Laboratory report indicated that Pooja Manish Shah was not the biological daughter of the claimed parents.

Judicial Review

The court emphasized its role in judicial review, not appellate jurisdiction, and upheld the scrutiny committee’s decision. The committee had considered all relevant material and documents.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition, agreeing with the scrutiny committee's findings that the documents produced by the petitioner were unreliable. The petition was rejected with no order as to costs.