Strangers lacking legal injury cannot maintain challenges to a candidate’s caste certificate.

Respondent No. 1, Phool Singh Valre, was shown as the petitioner in W.P. No. 1646 of 2005, in which the appellant, Mahendra Singh Thakur, was impleaded as Respondent No. 4.

The Single Judge, by order dated 06.04.2005, directed the petitioners to approach the High Power Committee for verification of the appellant’s caste certificate in accordance with Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94, without recording any final adverse finding against the appellant.

The appellant alleged that he had received no notice of the writ proceedings and became aware of them only in 2007 during an enquiry.

Respondent No. 1 subsequently denied filing or authorising the writ petition and denied his signature thereon.

The appellant also alleged that Respondent No. 2, B.L. Patel, had made repeated false complaints against him, although departmental enquiries had exonerated him.

The appellant’s application for recall/review, MCC No. 453 of 2008, was dismissed on 07.03.2008, leading to the present writ appeal.

During the appeal, the parties retired, the appellant’s caste certificate was found genuine in departmental enquiries, and no High Power Committee enquiry was conducted.

1. Whether the order dated 06.04.2005 directing verification of the appellant’s caste certificate by the High Power Committee was legally sustainable in the circumstances of the case.

2. Whether the writ proceedings and the consequential order could be sustained when Respondent No. 1 denied filing or authorising the writ petition and the appellant alleged absence of notice and breach of natural justice.

3. Whether any effective relief or further caste-certificate enquiry could be directed after the parties had retired, the certificate had been found genuine, and no enquiry had been undertaken pursuant to the impugned order.

4. Whether persons lacking a direct legal injury or personal grievance could maintain a proceeding challenging the appellant’s caste certificate.

The Court applied the principle that verification of caste status must be undertaken, where warranted, by the competent High Power Committee in accordance with the safeguards and procedure prescribed in Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, AIR 1995 SC 94.

It also relied on Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465, for the rule that a stranger, busybody, or meddlesome person lacking a direct legal injury or legally protected interest has no locus standi to invoke writ jurisdiction or challenge an administrative action.

The Court further recognised the principles of natural justice, including notice and opportunity of hearing, although it did not conclusively adjudicate the disputed allegations concerning the filing and authenticity of the writ petition because those matters involved disputed facts.

The Court found that the Single Judge’s order merely directed the petitioners to approach the High Power Committee and did not declare the appellant’s caste certificate invalid or record any final adverse finding against him.

Nevertheless, the complaint had arisen in the context of serious inter se disputes, and the record showed that departmental enquiries had found the appellant’s caste certificate genuine and valid.

The allegations concerning the unauthorised use of Respondent No. 1’s name, the genuineness of his signature, and the alleged suppression of facts could not be conclusively determined in the writ appeal because they involved disputed questions of fact.

The Court also held that the complainants lacked the requisite direct legal interest to challenge the caste certificate.

In any event, all concerned persons had retired, no High Power Committee enquiry had been initiated, and no useful purpose would be served by ordering a belated enquiry, particularly when the certificate had already been found valid in departmental proceedings.

The orders dated 06.04.2005 in W.P. No. 1646 of 2005 and 07.03.2008 in MCC No. 453 of 2008 were set aside, as no effective or useful purpose would be served by directing a further High Power Committee enquiry after the parties’ retirement and in view of the appellant’s valid caste certificate.

The Court clarified that its order did not affect the departmental proceedings concerning Respondent No. 2, who had already been exonerated.

No order as to costs was made.