A summons seeking supporting evidence after an adverse vigilance report does not warrant writ interference.

The petitioner challenged proceedings dated 13 July 2026, which summoned him to appear before the State Level Scrutiny Committee-II with original documents and an explanation concerning his community-status claim.

He argued that the Committee could not conduct a further enquiry beyond the vigilance report and anthropologist’s report, relying on Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham.

The petition sought to quash the summons and confine any further enquiry to the Vigilance Cell.

1. Whether the Committee’s summons requiring the petitioner to appear with supporting documents provided grounds for intervention under Article 226.

2. Whether the Committee could invite the petitioner to produce evidence in response to an adverse vigilance report, or was confined to relying on that report.

Article 226 permits judicial review, but the Court will not ordinarily intervene in an ongoing enquiry merely because a party has been summoned; available grounds may be raised before the competent authority and reviewed if an adverse order is made.

Paragraph 4.2.7 of the manual issued pursuant to G.O.Ms. No. 104, Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department, dated 21 August 2023, provides that where the vigilance report is adverse, the Committee should give the candidate an opportunity to appear or submit a reply with supporting evidence.

The Court also referred to Dayaram v. Sudhir Batham, 2012 (1) SCC 333, as the petitioner’s authority, and to the Full Bench decision in R. Gurusamy v. Tamil Nadu State Level Scrutiny Committee and Others, W.P. No. 23827 of 2025, decided 30 July 2026, concerning the purpose of verifying genuineness and the need not to interrupt the process prematurely.

The Court treated the challenged proceeding as a summons—not a final determination of the petitioner’s community status.

Under paragraph 4.2.7, the Committee could call upon the petitioner to appear and submit evidence in support of his claim so that it could consider his response to the adverse vigilance report.

The petitioner could explain that any requested documents were unavailable or irrelevant and could raise his substantive objections before the Committee.

Because no final adverse order had been made, the Court found no basis to intervene at that stage.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were also dismissed.