Scrutiny Committees must decide caste certificate verification claims within prescribed statutory timelines.

The petitioner, a voter in Ward No. 4 of the Chhota-Udepur Municipality, challenged the election of Manjulaben Kishanbhai Koli (Respondent No. 4) to a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe (ST) category

Respondent No. 4 was subsequently elected as the Municipality President, a post also reserved for an ST woman

The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 4 obtained the post using a "false caste certificate" and submitted multiple representations to the authorities between March 2025 and March 2026, requesting a verification of the certificate

Despite the matter being referred to the Scrutiny Committee (File No. 5652) and further complaints being lodged via the Prime Minister’s Office, no final decision was rendered by the authorities for over a year

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent authorities to decide on these pending representations

1. Whether the Scrutiny Committee failed to discharge its statutory duty by failing to decide on the validity of the caste certificate within the timeframe prescribed by law

2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued to direct the respondent authorities to resolve the petitioner’s representations regarding the alleged fraudulent caste certificate

The court primarily applied the Gujarat Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificate) Act, 2018, read with Rule 11(10)(a) of the Gujarat Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of Caste Certificates) Rules, 2020

Rule 11(10)(a) mandates that the Scrutiny Committee must decide on a claim within a period not exceeding two months from the date of receipt of an application and communicate said decision within one month thereafter

The court also exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure the performance of statutory duties by public authorities

The court observed that although the statutory mandate under Rule 11(10)(a) requires a decision within two months, nearly one year had elapsed without a final determination by the Scrutiny Committee

The petitioner contended that the delay was attributed to the pending report of the vigilance cell, which the court viewed as an insufficient justification for bypassing mandatory statutory timelines

The respondent authorities are legally bound to verify the validity of caste certificates when challenged, especially in the context of elected positions reserved for specific categories

Consequently, the court found that the continued inaction of the Scrutiny Committee constituted a failure to perform its statutory duty

The court directed the respondent authorities to decide the petitioner’s representations in accordance with the law within eight weeks from the date of the order

The court further mandated that the petitioner be granted an opportunity for a hearing and warned that failure to comply with this timeline would result in appropriate action against the "erring officer"

Rule was made absolute to this extent