Amrat Lal Meena @ Amrat Meena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.50664 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC010917282025
Amrat Lal Meena @ Amrat Meena
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh & others
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma – Senior Advocate with Mr. Quazi Fakhruddin and
Ms. Vaishnavi Rao – Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Swapnil Ganguly and Ms. Shweta Yadav – Deputy Advocate General for
State.
Mr. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi – Senior Advocate appears through video
conferencing with Mr. Pramod Singh Tomar – Advocate for intervener.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 08.10.2026
Delivered on : 28.10.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
2
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the impugned order
dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P/1), passed by respondent No. 4 (Madhya
Pradesh State Level High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committee), whereby the
Scheduled Tribe ‘Meena’ caste certificate dated 29.10.1991 (Annexure P/2)
issued in favour of the petitioner by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Lateri (Sironj Sub-
Division), District Vidisha, has been cancelled.
2. The present controversy lies in a geographical anomaly concerning
the notification of the ‘Meena’ community in the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Prior to the reorganization of States on 01.11.1956, the Sironj Sub-Division
comprising Tehsils Sironj and Lateri formed part of Rajasthan, where the
‘Meena’ community is notified as a Scheduled Tribe (ST). Upon the merger
of Sironj Sub-Division into District Vidisha of the State of Madhya Pradesh
in 1956, the ‘Meena’ community continued to be notified as a Scheduled Tribe
at Entry No. 32 of the Presidential Order strictly in relation to the Sironj Sub-
Division (Tehsils Sironj and Lateri) of District Vidisha, whereas in the
remaining districts of Madhya Pradesh, the ‘Meena’ community is notified
under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. Subsequently, by virtue
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment) Act, 2002
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
3
(notified by the Government of India w.e.f. 08.01.2003 and communicated by
the State of Madhya Pradesh vide Notification dated 05.08.2005), the ‘Meena’
community in Sironj Sub-Division of District Vidisha was also de-
notified/deleted from the Scheduled Tribes list.
3. It is common ground between the parties that the petitioner belongs
to the ‘Meena’ caste/community. On 29.10.1991, while the ‘Meena’
community in Sironj Sub-Division of District Vidisha was a notified
Scheduled Tribe, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha issued a caste
certificate certifying the petitioner to be a resident of Village Madavta, Tehsil
Lateri, District Vidisha belonging to the ‘Meena’ Scheduled Tribe.
4. The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner
participated in the State Services Examination, 1995 conducted by the Madhya
Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) and was declared successful
th
on 21.01.1997, securing 25 position in the merit list for the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DSP). Prior to issuing his appointment order, the
State Government vide letter dated 09.05.1997 (Annexure P/3), directed the
Collector, District Vidisha to verify the genuineness and validity of the
petitioner’s caste certificate. The petitioner was also issued a Domicile
Certificate dated 25.08.1997 (Annexure P/4) by the competent authority at
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
4
Lateri certifying his native residence at Village Madavta, Tehsil Lateri,
District Vidisha.
5. During the pre-appointment verification, which spanned nearly two
years between 1997 and 1998, the Collector, Vidisha called for reports from
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sironj; the Tehsildar, Lateri; the Sub-
Divisional Officer of Police (SDOP), Sironj/Lateri and the District
Magistrate/Collector, Guna. By report dated 12.10.1997/1998 (Annexure P/5),
the Office of the District Magistrate, Guna based on the inquiry of Tehsildar,
Chachoda dated 06.10.1998 certified that the petitioner had only obtained
education in Tehsil Chachoda and was not a permanent/original resident of
Tehsil Chachoda, District Guna. Concurring with the reports of Tehsildar
Lateri; SDM Sironj; SDOP Sironj/Lateri; and Collector Guna; the Collector,
District Vidisha submitted a comprehensive verification report dated
22.10.1998 (Annexure P/6) to the Secretary, Department of Home (Police),
Bhopal confirming that the petitioner is an ancestral resident of Village
Madavta, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha and that the Scheduled Tribe
certificate issued to him is genuine and valid. Satisfied with the Collector’s
report, the State Government issued the petitioner’s appointment order as
Deputy Superintendent of Police on 27.02.1999 (Annexure P/7).
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
5
6. Almost eight years after petitioner’s appointment, one Bhanu Kumar
Jain submitted a complaint dated 11.04.2007 (Annexure P/9) to the respondent
No. 3 (DGP) alleging that the petitioner and seven other police officers of the
Meena community had secured appointment on false caste certificates. A full-
fledged inquiry was conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department
(CID), Police Headquarters, Bhopal, which examined villagers of Madavta as
well as the 1998 Collector verification record and found the complaint to be
unsubstantiated and closed the matter vide report dated 29.04.2010 which was
approved by the Additional Director General of Police (CID) on 03.05.2010
(Annexure P/10).
7. Subsequently, in the year 2012, further complaints were made by
Shri Ramesh Kumar Thakre on 06.02.2012 and Shri Vinay Kant Suhane on
12.09.2012. On the basis of a communication dated 30.05.2012 from the
Tehsildar, Lateri and a scrutiny report dated 24.07.2015 / 04.08.2015 prepared
by two Police Inspectors of CID, respondent No. 4 passed an order dated
19.02.2016 cancelling the petitioner’s caste certificate.
8. The petitioner assailed the order dated 19.02.2016 before this Court
in W.P. No. 6200/2016, wherein an interim stay against coercive action was
granted on 05.04.2016 (Annexure P/11). By a detailed final order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
6
24.09.2024 (Annexure P/12), a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed W.P.
No. 6200/2016 and disposed of connected W.P. No. 20246/2012 filed by
complainant Vinay Kant Suhane. This Court quashed the cancellation order
dated 19.02.2016 and remanded the matter to respondent No. 4 in the
following terms:
“30. Resultantly, by quashing the order Annexure P-24, WP No.
6200/2016 is allowed. Nothing survives for adjudication in
WP No. 20246/2012 and it is accordingly disposed of. The
matter would now go back to the scrutiny committee to
carry out a fresh independent scrutiny as per para-13.5 and
13.6 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madhuri
Patil (supra) and after taking statements of witnesses,
arrive at its own conclusion without being influenced by the
earlier reports and statements recorded during the
preparation of earlier report and the contradictory
enquiries being carried out from the years 1997 till 2012.”
9. In compliance with the remand order dated 24.09.2024, respondent
No. 4 resolved in its meeting dated 10.06.2025 to get a de novo field
investigation conducted uninfluenced by any previous inquiry and vide letter
dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P/13) directed the Superintendent of Police,
Vidisha acting as Vigilance Officer to conduct a spot investigation strictly in
accordance with Paragraphs 13.5 and 13.6 of Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl.
Commissioner, Tribal Development , (1994) 6 SCC 241 .
10. The Superintendent of Police, Vidisha got the field investigation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
7
conducted through Shri Amaresh Bohre, SDOP, Lateri and forwarded the
comprehensive inquiry report vide letter dated 14.10.2025 (Annexure P/14) to
respondent No. 4. The SDOP, Lateri visited Village Madavta, and after
conducting inspection. On the basis of detailed inspection, the Superintendent
of Police, Vidisha reported in favour of the petitioner, certifying that the
petitioner and his ancestors are original residents of Village Madavta, Tehsil
Lateri, District Vidisha and that his father had sold their ancestral kachcha
house in Madavta about 35-40 years ago particularly, in 1990 to relative Amar
Singh Meena when sending his children to relatives places for education while
retaining their agricultural land in Madavta.
11. The respondent No. 4 in its meeting dated 23.10.2025 treated the
vigilance report of SP, Vidisha as incomplete on the ground that complaints
alleged the petitioner to be a native of District Guna and vide letter dated
28.10.2025 directed the Superintendent of Police, Guna to conduct a spot
investigation on the specific issue as to whether the petitioner’s ancestors were
residents of Binaganj/Chachoda, District Guna as of the year 1950.
12. Pursuant thereto, the Superintendent of Police, Guna got a field
inquiry conducted through the SDOP, Chachoda, District Guna and submitted
his report dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure P/15) to respondent No. 4. Based on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
8
the entirety of the investigation, the Superintendent of Police, Guna also
submitted a report in favour of the petitioner, concluding that the petitioner is
the maternal nephew ( bhanja ) of Village Bapcha Lahariya who had come from
his native Village Madavta (Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha) at the age of 5-6
years to his maternal uncles’ home solely for schooling. It was also concluded
that his father purchased land and built a house in Chak Harichha after the
petitioner’s entry into police service and that neither the petitioner nor his
ancestors were residents of Binaganj/Chachoda, District Guna as of the year
1950.
13. Thereafter, the respondent No. 4 issued notice dated 27.11.2025
calling upon the petitioner to appear for a hearing on 09.12.2025. The
petitioner appeared on 09.12.2025 and submitted a detailed 15-point written
representation (Annexure P/16), specifically objecting that in view of the two
favourable Vigilance Officer reports and the mandatory bar contained in
Clause 3 of the State Government (GAD) Order dated 08.09.1997 read with
Guideline 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra), no further action was
required by the Committee and the proceedings ought to be dropped. The
petitioner also claimed protection under the State Government Cabinet
decision / GAD Circular dated 02.09.2016 and placed on record official
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
9
communications from Collectorate Vidisha and Collectorate Guna certifying
that the 1955/1960/1970 revenue records of Village Madavta had been
officially destroyed vide Collector Vidisha’s Order dated 25.04.2005 and the
1950 Khasra of Village Harichha was unavailable.
14. Vide impugned order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure P/1), respondent
No. 4 discarded both favourable Vigilance Reports of SP, Vidisha and SP,
Guna as being based predominantly on oral evidence and once again cancelled
the petitioner’s caste certificate dated 29.10.1991.
15. Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned
order dated 09.12.2025 is issued in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon
respondent No. 4. It is urged that under Guideline 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) as well as Clause 3 of Appendix-1 to the State Government’s
binding Circular dated 08.09.1997 (Annexure P/8), once the Vigilance Cell
investigation reports of both SP, Vidisha (Annexure P/14) and SP, Guna
(Annexure P/15) came in favour of the petitioner, respondent No. 4 was
statutorily mandated to drop the proceedings unless it recorded a specific
finding, backed by material, that the Vigilance Officers’ reports were procured
or found to be false or fraudulently obtained. It is submitted by Ld. Senior
counsel that no such finding of fraud or procurement has been recorded in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
10
impugned order. Ld. Senior counsel further submitted that respondent No. 4
acted in direct defiance of the remand order dated 24.09.2024 passed in W.P.
No. 6200/2016 by falling back upon the pre-remand 2014 CID compilation
after the fresh field inquiries went in the petitioner’s favour. He further
contended that the respondent No. 4 failed to adjudicate the specific
jurisdictional objection raised in Paragraph 8 of the petitioner’s reply dated
09.12.2025 and violated the principles of natural justice. Ld. Senior counsel
also opposed the three intervention applications, submitting that the
intervenors are complete strangers lacking locus standi in a service matter and
are acting out of malice and extortionary motives.
16. Per contra , Ld. Deputy Advocate General appearing for the
respondents/State supported the impugned order on the strength of the return
filed by the State. It was contended that although SP, Vidisha through SDOP,
Lateri and SP, Guna through SDOP, Chachoda submitted reports favourable
to the petitioner, both reports were defective and not in consonance with
Guideline 13.5 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) inasmuch as they relied
primarily on oral witness statements without properly verifying school
records, birth registration, pre-1950 revenue documents or anthropological
traits. Therefore, in terms of Guideline 13.7 r/w Guideline 13.6, the Scrutiny
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
11
Committee was justified in issuing a show-cause notice dated 27.11.2025 and
examining the material received from PHQ (CID), Bhopal vide letter dated
21.07.2014 which included the 1984 Primary Board examination entry, the
1987 Class 9 admission entry, the Class 6 and 1991-92 College OBC
scholarship entries and the 1958 Khasra entries of Village Harichha, District
Guna in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather Biharilal.
17. Ld. Senior counsel appearing for the proposed intervenors
vehemently prayed for impleadment as party respondents to support the
impugned order, relying inter alia upon the appointment of the petitioner’s
younger brother Gaurav Singh Meena under the OBC category from District
Guna, current land and Samagra ID records in District Guna, the 1991-92
college OBC scholarship record, the CID letter dated 04.08.2015 and an RTI
response dated 26.03.2026 from Tehsildar, Lateri stating that no entry of the
petitioner’s 1991 caste certificate was found in the Tehsil register.
18. Heard the respective counsel and perused the record.
19. Before adverting to the legality of the impugned order dated
09.12.2025, it is necessary to first decide the maintainability of the three
intervention applications and the accompanying application for vacating stay
filed by third-party complainants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
12
20. The law governing the locus standi of third-party complainants or
strangers to seek impleadment as adversarial parties in writ proceedings under
Article 226 challenging orders of a Caste Scrutiny Committee or
disciplinary/statutory authorities is no longer res integra . In Ravi Yashwant
Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad , (2012) 4 SCC 407 , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that a complainant can, at the highest, be a witness or provide
information to trigger an inquiry, but cannot claim the status of an adversarial
litigant in a writ petition.
“58. Shri Chintaman Raghunath Gharat, ex-President was the
complainant, thus, at the most, he could lead evidence as a
witness. He could not claim the status of an adversarial
litigant. The complainant cannot be the party to the lis. A
legal right is an averment of entitlement arising out of law.
In fact, it is a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of
law. Thus, a person who suffers from legal injury can only
challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or
loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of the law because
it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected
interest of the complainant but juridically harm of this
description is called damnum sine injuria.
59. The complainant has to establish that he has been deprived
of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to
any legally protected interest. In case he has no legal peg
for a justiciable claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a
party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not
be sufficient to confer a locus standi to sue upon the
individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance which
can be appreciated and not a stat pro ratione voluntas
reasons i.e. a claim devoid of reasons. 60. Under the garb
of being a necessary party, a person cannot be permitted to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
13
make a case as that of general public interest. A person
having a remote interest cannot be permitted to become a
party in the lis, as the person who wants to become a party
in a case, has to establish that he has a proprietary right
which has been or is threatened to be violated, for the
reason that a legal injury creates a remedial right in the
injured person. A person cannot be heard as a party unless
he answers the description of aggrieved party.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
21. Reiterating the aforesaid principle specifically in the context of caste
scrutiny proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan
Pathan v. State of Maharashtra , (2013) 4 SCC 465 , has held that a stranger
who does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes category and has suffered no
personal legal injury cannot be permitted to meddle in service matters or caste
verification proceedings under the garb of public interest and restrained the
complainant therein from intervening or remaining a party to the lis while
imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
22. Tested on the anvil of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) and
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) , none of the three proposed
intervenors belong to the Scheduled Tribe category; none of them competed
against the petitioner in the 1995 State Services Examination or belong to his
cadre/zone of consideration for promotion to the Indian Police Service and
none of them have suffered any legal injury ( injuria ) to any legally protected
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
14
interest. Accordingly, in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) ,
I.A. No. 2711/2026, I.A. No. 5062/2026 and I.A. No. 22643/2026 for
intervention are held to be devoid of locus standi and merit, and are hereby
dismissed.
23. Turning to the merits of the challenge to the impugned order dated
09.12.2025, this Court is mindful at the very outset of the contours of judicial
review delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 15 of Kumari
Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development , (1994) 6 SCC
241 :
“15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the
High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated
by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to
appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered
to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a
finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by
judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of
interference with findings of fact. The Committee when
considers all the material facts and records a finding, though
another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a
ground to reverse the findings. The court has to see whether
the Committee considered all the relevant material placed
before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which
have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each
case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
15
24. Thus, this Court is not required to sit as a Court of Appeal to re-
appreciate or re-weigh the oral and documentary evidence in totality. Rather,
the inquiry before this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction under
Article 226 is strictly confined to examining whether respondent No. 4 acted
contrary to the mandatory procedural architecture laid down in Guidelines
13.5, 13.6, and 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) r/w Clause 3 of
Appendix-1 to the State Government Circular dated 08.09.1997 and whether
the decision-making process of respondent No. 4 is vitiated by non-application
of mind to binding Government Circulars and specific jurisdictional
objections raised by the petitioner and also whether there is violation of the
principles of natural justice as expounded in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan
(supra) and malice in law as expounded in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) .
25. To appreciate the jurisdictional infirmity goes to the root of the
impugned order, it is apposite to reproduce Guidelines 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of
Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) :
“13. …….. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the
procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their
scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
*
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell
consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in
over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to
investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
16
would go to the local place of residence and original
place from which the candidate hails and usually resides
or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from
which he originally hailed from. The vigilance officer
should personally verify and collect all the facts of the
social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or
guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the
school records, birth registration, if any. He should also
examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation
to their caste etc. or such other persons who have
knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then
submit a report to the Directorate together with all
particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular,
of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar
anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals,
customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of
burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal
communities concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the
vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to
be “not genuine” or ‘doubtful’ or spurious or falsely or
wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue
show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the
vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with
acknowledgement due or through the head of the
educational institution concerned in which the candidate
is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that
the representation or reply, if any, would be made within
two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in
no case on request not more than 30 days from the date
of the receipt of the notice. In case, the candidate seeks
for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be
made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such
representation/reply shall convene the committee and the
Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give
reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian
to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public
notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
17
be published in the village or locality and if any person
or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to
adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such
opportunity either in person or through counsel, the
Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient
and consider the claims vis-à-vis the objections raised by
the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order
with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found
to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken
except where the report or the particulars given are
procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained
and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged
in para 6 be followed.
[Emphasis Supplied]
26. In order to give statutory/executive effect to the judgment in Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra), the State of Madhya Pradesh through the General
Administration Department issued Order dated 08.09.1997 (Annexure P/8)
constituting the High Powered Caste Scrutiny Committee and prescribing the
binding procedure in Appendix-1 thereof. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix-1
read as under:
“ 1. ,
छानबीन सिमित जांच का काय [ पुिलस अिधकार ȣ के मा Ú यम से
करावेगी। जांच अिधकार ȣ मौके पर जाकर ǒ व è तृत जांच Ĥ ितवेदन
छानबीन सिमित को िनधा [ǐ रत अविध के अ Û दर Ĥè तुत करेगा।
2. ,
छानबीन सिमित य Ǒ द सतक [ ता अिधकार ȣ क ȧ ǐ रपोट [ के आधार
पर यह पाती है Ǒ क आवेदक का सामा ǔ जक è तर का È लेम सह ȣ
नह ȣ ं है या संदेहा è पद है या गलत Ǿ प से È लेम Ĥè तुत कर रहा है
तब सिमित ऐसे आवेदक को सतक [ ता अिधकार ȣ क ȧ ǐ रपोट [ क ȧ
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
18
,
Ĥ ित के साथ पंजीकृत डाक से रसीद स Ǒ हत कारण बताओ सूचना
...
प ğ शै ¢ǔ णक सं è था या काया लय [ Ĥ मुख के मा Ú यम से भेज Ʌ गे
3.
ऐसे Ĥ करण ɉ जहां सतक [ ता अिधकार ȣ क ȧ ǐ रपोट [ आवेदक के प ¢
”
म Ʌ हो सिमित को Ǒ कसी काय वाह [ ȣ क ȧ आव æ यकता नह ȣ ं होगी।
[Emphasis supplied]
27. A conjoint reading of Guidelines 13.5, 13.6 and 13.7 of Kumari
Madhuri Patil (supra) and Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix-1 to the State
Government Circular dated 08.09.1997 establishes an unambiguous, two-
stage jurisdictional filter:
i. First, field investigation into the social status and original
residence of the candidate is the exclusive domain of the
Vigilance Cell / Police Officer, who must visit the spot and
submit a report to the Committee.
ii. Second, the jurisdiction of the Scrutiny Committee to issue a
show-cause notice and proceed to an adversarial adjudication
under Guideline 13.6 (Clause 2 of the Circular) is triggered only
when the Vigilance Officer’s report is adverse or finds the claim
to be doubtful/not genuine.
iii. Third, where the report of the Vigilance Officer is in favour of
the candidate, Guideline 13.7 and Clause 3 of the Circular dated
08.09.1997 interpose a mandatory command that no further
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
19
action need be taken by the Committee, save and except in the
narrow contingency where it is established that the favourable
vigilance report itself was procured or found to be false or
fraudulently obtained.
28. In the case at hand, pursuant to the remand order dated 24.09.2024
passed by this Court in W.P. No. 6200/2016, respondent No. 4 itself entrusted
the field investigation under Guideline 13.5 to the Superintendent of Police,
Vidisha vide letter dated 11.09.2025. The Superintendent of Police, Vidisha
conducted an exhaustive spot inquiry in Village Madavta, Tehsil Lateri,
District Vidisha and submitted his report dated 14.10.2025 unequivocally in
favour of the petitioner, verifying from villagers, neighbouring village
witnesses, public representatives, social organization heads, physical
inspection of the ancestral house, agricultural land and clan deity shrine and
current Patwari land records that the petitioner and his ancestors are original
residents of Village Madavta, Tehsil Lateri, District Vidisha.
29. Even when respondent No. 4 chose on 23.10.2025/28.10.2025 to
seek a second field investigation from the Superintendent of Police, Guna on
the specific query whether the petitioner’s ancestors were residents of
Binaganj/Chachoda, District Guna as of 1950, the Superintendent of Police,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
20
Guna conducted a thorough spot investigation in Villages Bapcha Lahariya
and Chak Harichha, examined 14 local witnesses/public representatives,
checked Panchayat and SDO (Revenue) Chachoda records and submitted a
second Vigilance Report dated 12.11.2025 which was also unequivocally in
favour of the petitioner, concluding that neither the petitioner nor his ancestors
were residents of Binaganj/Chachoda, District Guna as of 1950 and that the
petitioner had merely stayed at his maternal uncles’ village in Guna for
schooling.
30. Once both independent Vigilance Officers nominated by respondent
No. 4 itself, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Vidisha and the
Superintendent of Police, Guna submitted field reports unequivocally in
favour of the petitioner, Clause 3 of the State Government Circular dated
08.09.1997 and Guideline 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) came into
full operation. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 as well as
the return filed by the State before this Court reveals that there is not even a
whisper of a finding that either the report of SP, Vidisha dated 14.10.2025 or
the report of SP, Guna dated 12.11.2025 was procured or fraudulently
obtained by the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
21
31. Instead, the Committee purported to reject both Vigilance Reports
on the premise that they relied mainly on oral evidence and did not annex pre-
1950 revenue documents or school records. This criticism by the Committee
suffers from patent non-application of mind to the record before it. Regarding
anthropological and cultural traits under Guideline 13.5, both Vigilance
Reports specifically verified and physically inspected the petitioner’s Meena
clan deity shrine ( Kul Devta -Veer Maharaj, Jind Baba and Kuldevi Mataji)
situated within walking distance of his ancestral house in Village Madavta,
Tehsil Lateri and recorded the testimony of villagers and elders regarding his
customary worship and social participation in Madavta.
32. Furthermore, regarding pre-1950 revenue records, the petitioner had
explicitly placed on record in paragraph No. 10 of his written reply dated
09.12.2025, the official certifications issued under the Public Service
Guarantee Act by the Collectorate, Vidisha certifying that the 1955/1960 and
1970/1971 revenue records of Village Madavta were officially destroyed
pursuant to Collector’s Order dated 25.04.2005 and by the Collectorate, Guna
certifying that the 1950 Khasra of Village Harichha, Tehsil Chachoda is
unavailable, which was also independently reported by the SDO (Revenue),
Chachoda vide letter dated 10.11.2025. Furthermore, the State Government’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
22
own Circular dated 14.08.2013 read with Clause 6.6 of Circular dated
11.07.2005 expressly stipulates that an applicant cannot be compelled to
produce written revenue records of the year 1950 where unavailable and field
inquiry/oral evidence suffices. The law does not compel a citizen to perform
the impossible by producing revenue records of 1950 that the State’s own
Collectorate has officially destroyed in 2005.
33. Consequently, in the absence of any finding that the two favourable
Vigilance Reports of SP, Vidisha and SP, Guna were procured by fraud,
respondent No. 4 had no jurisdiction to sit as an appellate authority over its
own Vigilance Cell or to bypass the mandatory bar contained in Guideline
13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and Clause 3 of the State Government
Circular dated 08.09.1997.
34. There is an equally fatal procedural infirmity in the methodology
adopted by respondent No. 4. While allowing W.P. No. 6200/2016 vide order
dated 24.09.2024, this Court had noticed that the earlier inquiries between
1997 and 2012 were contradictory and that the CID Inspectors in 2015 had
merely acted as adjudicators by compiling old records without conducting any
field investigation. It was for this precise reason that this Court in paragraph
No. 30 of the order dated 24.09.2024 commanded the Scrutiny Committee to:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
23
“30. Resultantly, by quashing the order Annexure P-24, WP No.
6200/2016 is allowed. Nothing survives for adjudication in
WP No. 20246/2012 and it is accordingly disposed of. The
matter would now go back to the scrutiny committee to carry
out a fresh independent scrutiny as per para-13.5 and 13.6
of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Madhuri Patil
(supra) and after taking statements of witnesses, arrive at
its own conclusion without being influenced by the earlier
reports and statements recorded during the preparation of
earlier report and the contradictory enquiries being carried
out from the years 1997 till 2012.”
[Emphasis Supplied]
35. Respondent No. 4 itself understood the aforesaid mandate when, in
its meeting dated 10.06.2025 and letter dated 11.09.2025, it resolved that the
matter shall be investigated afresh, wherein all previous inquiries and recorded
statements etc. shall not be taken into cognizance. However, when both fresh
field investigations conducted in October and November, 2025 by SP, Vidisha
and SP, Guna resulted in findings favourable to the petitioner, respondent No.
4 took about turn. As admitted by the respondents in paragraph No. 9 of their
Return before this Court, respondent No. 4 fell back upon records received
from the Police Headquarters, Crime Investigation Department, Bhopal vide
letter dated 21.07.2014 (which formed the basis of the quashed 2015-16
proceedings) to resurrect the 1984/1987 school admission list entries, the
Class 6 and 1991-92 college scholarship payment sheets and the 1958 Village
Harichha revenue entry.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
24
36. Without re-appreciating those documents as an appellate court of
fact, this Court finds that the manner in which respondent No. 4 utilized the
pre-remand 2014 CID compilation is vitiated by manifest errors of law and
violations of natural justice.
37. In Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham , (2012) 1 SCC 333 , a three-Judge
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the scope of Kumari Madhuri
Patil (supra) and held that the scheme of verification by scrutiny committees
was formulated to examine caste certificates issued without any prior inquiry
and that caste certificates which have already been subjected to due and proper
inquiry do not call for repeated verification. Applying Dayaram (supra) , the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) held:-
“39. The correctness of the said judgment in Madhuri Patil
[(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC
259] was doubted, and the matter was referred to and
decided by a larger Bench of this Court in Dayaram v.
Sudhir Batham [(2012) 1 SCC 333 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 205
: (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 109] , wherein, while deciding the
various issues involved, including the competence of this
Court to legislate in this regard, it was held as under :
(Dayaram case [(2012) 1 SCC 333 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 205
: (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 109] , SCC pp. 353-54, paras 35-36)
“35. The Scrutiny Committee is not an adjudicating
authority like a court or tribunal, but an administrative
body which verifies the facts, investigates into a
specific claim (of caste status) and ascertains whether
the caste/tribal status claimed is correct or not. …
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
25
36. Having regard to the scheme for verification
formulated by this Court in Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6
SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259]
the Scrutiny Committees carry out verification of caste
certificates issued without prior enquiry, as for
example, the caste certificates issued by Tahsildars or
other officers of the departments of Revenue/Social
Welfare/Tribal Welfare, without any enquiry or on the
basis of self-affidavits about caste. If there were to be
a legislation governing or regulating grant of caste
certificates, and if caste certificates are issued after
due and proper inquiry, such caste certificates will not
call for verification by the Scrutiny Committees.
Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
1349 : (1994) 28 ATC 259] provides for verification
only to avoid false and bogus claims.”
(emphasis added)
Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid judgment in Dayaram
[(2012) 1 SCC 333 : (2012) 1 SCC (Civ) 205 : (2012) 1 SCC
(L&S) 109] , that the purpose of issuing directions in
Madhuri Patil [(1994) 6 SCC 241 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 1349
: (1994) 28 ATC 259] was only to examine those cases
where caste certificates had been issued without conducting
any prior enquiry, on the basis of self-affidavits regarding
one’s caste alone, and that the said directions were not at
all applicable, where a legislation governing or regulating
the grant of caste certificates exists, and where caste
certificates are issued after due and proper enquiry. The
caste certificates issued by holding proper enquiry, in
accordance with duly prescribed procedure, would not
require any further verification by the Scrutiny Committee.
45. The Scrutiny Committee in ordinary circumstances
examined the matter and after investigation through its
Vigilance Cell and considering all the documentary
evidence on record and after being satisfied, granted the
caste verification certificate in 2000. Section 114
Illustration (e) of the Evidence Act provided for the court to
pronounce that the decision taken by the Scrutiny
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
26
Committee has been done in regular course and the caste
certificate has been issued after due verification. Very
strong material/evidence is required to rebut the
presumption. In fact, Respondent 5 has no legal peg for a
justifiable claim to hang upon. Once Respondent 5, for the
reasons best known to him, had challenged caste certificate
under the garb of acting as a public-spirited person
espousing the cause of legitimate persons who had been
deprived of their right of being considered for appointment,
Respondent 5 must have acted seriously and brought the
material before the Scrutiny Committee to show that the
earlier decision was improbable or factually incorrect. Such
a view stands fortified by a catena of decisions rendered by
this Court where it has been held that presumption is based
on legal maxim omnia rite esse acta praesumuntur i.e. all
acts are presumed to have rightly and regularly been done.
Such a presumption can be rebutted by adducing
appropriate evidence. Mere statement made in the written
statement/petition is not enough to rebut the presumption.
The onus of rebuttal lies upon the person who alleges that
the act had not been regularly performed or the procedure
required under the law had not been followed. [Vide Gopal
Narain v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 370] , Narayan
Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 1 SCC 133
: 1977 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 1977 SC 183] , Karewwa v.
Hussensab Khansaheb Wajantri [(2002) 10 SCC 315 : AIR
2002 SC 504] , Engg. Kamgar Union v. Electro Steels
Castings Ltd. [(2004) 6 SCC 36 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 782] ,
Mohd. Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar [(2010) 4 SCC 653 :
(2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 904] , Punjab SEB v. Ashwani Kumar
[(2010) 7 SCC 569 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 147] , M. Chandra
v. M. Thangamuthu [(2010) 9 SCC 712 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ)
907 : AIR 2011 SC 146] and R. Ramachandran Nair v. State
of Kerala (Vigilance Deptt.) [(2011) 4 SCC 395 : (2011) 2
SCC (Cri) 251 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 691] .]”
[Emphasis Supplied]
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
27
38. In the instant case, as already held by this Court in Paragraph 17 of
the order dated 24.09.2024 in W.P. No. 6200/2016, the petitioner’s caste
certificate dated 29.10.1991 was not accepted on face value at the time of his
selection in 1997; rather, his appointment was withheld for nearly two years
while a full-fledged verification was conducted through the Collector, District
Vidisha and Collector, District Guna. Only after the Collector, Vidisha backed
by independent inquiries of SDM Sironj; Tehsildar Lateri; SDOP Sironj/Lateri
and Collector Guna, unequivocally certified on 22.10.1998 that the petitioner
was born in Village Madavta, District Vidisha, his father owned land in Lateri,
he had only studied in District Guna and his ST certificate was genuine and
valid, was the appointment order dated 27.02.1999 issued by the State
Government. That verification was reaffirmed by the CID in 2010 and yet
again by the two independent field investigations of SP, Vidisha dated
14.10.2025 and SP, Guna dated 12.11.2025. Hence, a detailed inquiry was
conducted by the Collector, Vidisha in 1997-98 culminating in the report dated
22.10.1998 upholding the validity of the certificate dated 29.10.1991.
39. In Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad , (2012) 4
SCC 407 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that recording of reasons
dealing with the specific explanation and legal objections raised by an affected
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
28
person is an essential facet of Articles 14 and 21 and the principles of natural
justice and that an order which displays the inscrutable face of the sphinx on
material objections or consciously disregards statutory safeguards to the
prejudice of an individual is vitiated by malice in law :
“47. This Court has consistently held that the State is under an
obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice in fact or in
law. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be
a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State.
“Legal malice” or “malice in law” means something done
without lawful excuse. It is a deliberate act in disregard to
the rights of others. It is an act which is taken with an
oblique or indirect object. It is an act done wrongfully and
wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not
necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite.
48. Mala fide exercise of power does not imply any moral
turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for
“purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended”.
It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of
another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority
to disregard the rights of others, where intent is manifested
by its injurious acts. Passing an order for unauthorised
purpose constitutes malice in law. (See ADM, Jabalpur v.
Shivakant Shukla [(1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 1976 SC 1207]
, Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan [(2005) 8 SCC 394 :
2005 SCC (L&S) 1150] and Kalabharati Advertising v.
Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437 : (2010)
3 SCC (Civ) 808 : AIR 2010 SC 3745] .)”
40. A perusal of Point 15 of the impugned Order shows that respondent
No. 4 expressly recorded that the petitioner had prayed for consideration and
decision on Points 7, 8 and 9 of his written representation dated 09.12.2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
29
(Annexure P/16). In Point 8 of his representation, the petitioner had raised a
direct jurisdictional bar, namely, that under GAD Order dated 08.09.1997
(Clause 3) r/w the remand order of this Court, where the Vigilance Officer’s
report is in favour of the applicant, the Committee is required to take no further
action and since both SP, Vidisha and SP, Guna had reported in his favour,
the proceedings must be dropped.
41. Remarkably, while respondent No. 4 adverted to Point 9, i.e., the
Circular dated 02.09.2016 in its operative findings, it maintained total silence
on Point 8 and failed to record a single reason as to how it could overcome the
mandatory bar of Clause 3 of the State Government Circular dated 08.09.1997
and Guideline 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) . Furthermore, even with
respect to Point 9, wherein the petitioner invoked M.P. Government GAD
Circular dated 02.09.2016 which was issued pursuant to the Cabinet decision
dated 23.08.2016 protecting the services of Keer , Pardhi and Meena
employees of Sironj Sub-Division who entered government service prior to
the de-notification date of 08.01.2003, the Committee denied protection solely
on the basis of its unsustainable conclusion discarding the two favourable
Vigilance Reports of SP, Vidisha and SP, Guna.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
30
42. Proceeding to cancel the petitioner’s caste certificate after 27 years
of decorated police service including the President’s Police Medal for
Gallantry and the Rustamji Award and on the eve of his induction into the
Indian Police Service, in conscious disregard of two favourable post-remand
Vigilance Reports of SP, Vidisha and SP, Guna, Clause 3 of the State Circular
dated 08.09.1997, Guideline 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and this
Court’s remand order dated 24.09.2024, clearly amounts to malice in law as
defined in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) .
43. The question that finally arises is whether the matter requires any
further remand to respondent No. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, a
second remand is neither warranted in law nor in the interest of justice.
Pursuant to the earlier remand order dated 24.09.2024 passed in W.P. No.
6200/2016, the statutory fact-finding exercise envisaged under Guideline 13.5
of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) and Clause 1 of Appendix-1 to the State
Circular dated 08.09.1997 has already been fully carried out on the field by
the two Vigilance Officers nominated by respondent No. 4, namely, the
Superintendent of Police, Vidisha vide report dated 14.10.2025 and the
Superintendent of Police, Guna vide report dated 12.11.2025. Both field
investigation reports are unequivocally in favour of the petitioner and there is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:86362
W.P. No. 50664-2025
31
no material or finding on record that either of those reports was procured by
fraud. Consequently, by operation of Guideline 13.7 of Kumari Madhuri Patil
(supra) and Clause 3 of Appendix-1 to the State Government Circular dated
08.09.1997, the only lawful course open to respondent No. 4 was to drop and
close the proceedings.
44. In view of the above, impugned order dated 09.12.2025 passed by
respondent No. 4 along with all consequential communications and
proceedings emanating therefrom is hereby quashed and set-aside. As a
consequence thereof, the petitioner’s caste certificate dated 29.10.1991
( Annexure P/2 ), stands restored and affirmed.
45. As a result, the writ petition stands allowed .
46. There shall be no order as to costs.
(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
AL
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
LILHARE
Signing time: 29-10-2026
10:04:38