Only legally injured persons can challenge caste certificate validity; affidavits not evidence under Section 3 Evidence Act

The SC held that only a person suffering legal injury has locus standi to challenge caste certificate validity; a stranger cannot intervene without such injury. The respondent, not belonging to the Scheduled Tribes category, lacked locus standi and abused court process to harass the appellant, resulting in a restraint from further intervention and an order to pay costs. Affidavits were deemed not evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act. The Scrutiny Committee's inquiry was found violative of natural justice as the appellant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The Court directed that before the Committee's report submission, the appellant must be allowed to cross-examine witnesses to ensure fair hearing.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the caste certificate of the appellant.
2. Locus standi of respondent no. 5 to challenge the caste certificate.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically the right to cross-examine witnesses.
4. The role and procedure of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee.
5. The legal significance of affidavits as evidence.
6. Costs and penalties for abuse of the legal process.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Caste Certificate:
The appellant was issued a caste certificate on 19.10.1989, confirming his status as Bhil Tadvi (Scheduled Tribes), which was verified by the Scrutiny Committee and supported by a Vigilance Cell report. Respondent no. 5 challenged the certificate in 2009, alleging misrepresentation and fraud. The High Court remitted the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for a de novo enquiry.

2. Locus Standi of Respondent No. 5:
The Court emphasized that only an aggrieved person can challenge an act/action/order in a court of law. Respondent no. 5, not belonging to any reserved category, lacked the locus standi to challenge the appellant's caste certificate. The Court cited several precedents, including *State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta* and *Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors.*, to support this position.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that the Scrutiny Committee violated natural justice principles by not allowing him to cross-examine witnesses. The Court upheld that cross-examination is integral to natural justice, citing *State of M.P. v. Chintaman Sadashiva Vaishampayan* and other cases. The Scrutiny Committee's failure to decide on the appellant's applications for recalling witnesses and cross-examination was found to be a serious procedural lapse.

4. Role and Procedure of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee:
The Court referred to the guidelines established in *Km. Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development*, which mandates a thorough investigation by the Scrutiny Committee. The Court noted that the Scrutiny Committee had already conducted an inquiry and found the appellant's caste certificate valid. The presumption of regularity under Section 114 Ill.(e) of the Evidence Act was applicable, and strong evidence was required to rebut this presumption.

5. Legal Significance of Affidavits as Evidence:
The Court reiterated that affidavits are not considered evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act unless the deponent is available for cross-examination. The Court cited *Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan & Ors.* and *Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani* to affirm this principle. The affidavit of Mr. Supdu Musa Tadvi, mentioned by respondent no. 5, was disregarded as he did not appear before the Scrutiny Committee.

6. Costs and Penalties for Abuse of the Legal Process:
The Court found respondent no. 5's actions reprehensible and without a sense of responsibility. Respondent no. 5 was restrained from further intervening in the matter and was ordered to pay costs of Rs. one lakh to the District Collector, Aurangabad, to be deposited in the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee account. The District Collector was authorized to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue if not paid within the stipulated period.

Conclusion:
The appeal was disposed of with directions to the Scrutiny Committee to allow the appellant to cross-examine witnesses and decide the applications filed by him. The decision of the Scrutiny Committee, if already taken without following principles of natural justice, would stand vitiated. Respondent no. 5 was penalized for abusing the legal process and harassing the appellant.

---