Judgment ( 1. ) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:- THE petitioner obtained a certificate Annexure P-3 dated 2-11-1982 certifying that he belongs to "BHUNJIYA" caste which is notified Scheduled tribe in the State of Madhya Pradesh. However, subsequently pursuant to some complaint, the High Level Caste Verification Committee took cognizance of the matter and by the impugned order dated 17-7-2007 cancelled the aforesaid caste certificate of the petitioner. This cancellation order Annexure P-2 is called in question in the present writ petition. ( 2. ) SHRI Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court; in Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and ors., AIR 1995 SC 94 . the Vigilance Officer/ Superintendent of Police (SP) prepared and filed two reports before the Committee, which are annexed with the petition at page 42 and 46 respectively. By placing reliance on these two reports of the SP, SHRI Dalal submits that both the reports clearly show that the petitioner's caste was found to be 'Bhunjiya' and reports are in his favour. By drawing the attention on the circular of G.A.D., filed by the respondents as Annexure R-2 dated 8-9-1997, SHRI Dalal further submits that in clause 3, it is made crystal clear that where the report of the Vigilance Officer is in favour of the petitioner, the Caste Verification Committee is not required to take any further action. The next submission of SHRI Dalai is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order where as per the judgment of Madhuri Patil and the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2007(2) Mh.L.J. (S.C.) 250 = 2006 AIR SCW 6093, State of Maharashtra vs. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar, it is made clear that the proceedings before the screening committee is quasi-judicial in nature and it was obligatory on the part of the said committee to deal with the every aspect of the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order. He submits that the impugned order is basically an ipse-dixit of the committee and no reasons are assigned for arriving the said conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is strange that basic reason for cancelling the certificate is section 80, Civil Procedure Code notice issued by an Advocate. He submits that the impugned order is basically an ipse-dixit of the committee and no reasons are assigned for arriving the said conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is strange that basic reason for cancelling the certificate is section 80, Civil Procedure Code notice issued by an Advocate. Learned counsel while criticising the order submits that the procedure adopted by the committee is totally unknown to law. In support of this he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in 2003(4) MPLJ 226 - 2004 (II) MPJR SN 22, Sudhir Batham vs. M. P. State Level Committee for Verification of Caste Certificate, He also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Civil Appeal No. 6253 of 2009, Sayanna vs. State of Maharashtra and others. By relying on para 10 of the judgment, learned counsel submits that the committee has committed an error of law in deciding the matter against him. ( 3. ) PER contra, learned Panel Lawyer supported the order passed by the Verification Committee and submits that it is open to the verification committee to decide whether the report submitted by the S. P. is to be relied upon or not. In other words, he submits that the Caste Certificate Committee is not bound by the order of the S. P. and in case it has any doubt or is not satisfied with the report of the S. P., the committee can still proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). He placed reliance on para 6 of his return which shows that one certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued by the M.L.A. and the Councillor of Municipal Corporation, Sehore. The petitioner on the strength of this certificate obtained caste certificate which was rightly cancelled by the aforesaid Committee. ( 4. ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. This is now a matter of common knowledge that the High Level Caste Verification Committee is constituted pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra). The Apex Court in the aforesaid matter has held that obtaining a false caste certificate is not only a fraud on the society, it is fraud on the constitution as well. This is now a matter of common knowledge that the High Level Caste Verification Committee is constituted pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra). The Apex Court in the aforesaid matter has held that obtaining a false caste certificate is not only a fraud on the society, it is fraud on the constitution as well. The Apex Court therefore prescribed a methodology for the purpose of examining and scrutinizing the caste certificate/status of an employee. On the basis of that judgment which became the law of the land under Art. 141/142 of the Constitution of India, the Caste Verification Committees are established nationwide and they are obliged to act and conduct in consonance with the procedure prescribed in the aforesaid judgment of Madhuri Patil. I find force in the submission of Shri Dalal that the procedure to be followed by the Caste Verification Committee is quasi-judicial in nature and it has been held by the Supreme Court in Ravi Prakash (supra). ( 5. ) THERE is yet another reason for holding that the procedures is quasi- judicial in nature i.e. because cancellation of caste certificate of a candidate/ person may lead to civil and criminal consequences. He may lose his employment or occupation which he has obtained on the basis of aforesaid caste status. In certain cases, Caste Verification Committee had directed for holding criminal prosecution where the certificate is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. THEREfore, it is necessary in all these matters to conduct the proceedings in a fair and quasi-judicial manner. ( 6. ) PAUSING here a moment, I will deal with the first contention of Shri Dalal, which is based on the G.A.D, Circular dated 8-9-1997, clause 3. On the strength of this paragraph and para 6 of judgment of Madhuri Patil (supra), Shri Dalal submits that once the reports of the Vigilance Committee/S.P. was in his favour, the further proceedings by the Caste Verification Committee was impermissible in law. Before dealing with this aspect it is profitable to refer para 12(5) and (7) of the judgment which reads thus :- 12(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. Before dealing with this aspect it is profitable to refer para 12(5) and (7) of the judgment which reads thus :- 12(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 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. 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. ( 7. ) IT is made obligatory for the Vigilance Officer to conduct an enquiry in a particular manner. This para shows that Vigilance Officer has to personally verify and collect all the facts regarding social status claimed by the candidate or his parents or guardian. The said officer is required to examine the school records, birth register and further required to examine the parents, guardian of the candidate in relation to their caste etc. The Vigilance officer is required to examine other persons who have knowledge of social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma. ( 8. The Vigilance officer is required to examine other persons who have knowledge of social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate with all particulars as envisaged in the proforma. ( 8. ) IN para 12(7), it has been held that 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 fraudulently obtained. The conjoint reading of para 12(5) and (7) would show that the SP was required to conduct an enquiry in a particular manner and to collect evidence in the manner and the methodology prescribed in the para 5 and 7 of the judgment. On this report which should be prepared strictly in consonance of para 12(5), the Caste Verification Committee is required to apply its mind on the genuineness and correctness of the said report. A microscopic reading of para 12(7) of the judgment shows that when the report is found to be genuine and true then only no further action need be taken by the said Committee. However, while examining "genuineness" or "trueness" of the said report, needless to mention that the committee is to be guided by para 5 of the said judgment. IN other words, it is obligatory on the part of the S. P. to conduct an enquiry in a particular manner in consonance with the requirement of para 5 of the judgment in Madhuri Patil (supra). When report prepared is as per the aforesaid methodology and report is in favour of the candidate, the Committee cannot have any objection to give a finding that it is genuine and true. However, when the report is sketchy and not dealing with each and every aspect which is required to be dealt with as per para 5 of the judgment, it is open to the Caste Verification Committee to proceed further and such a cryptic report or a report which is not in consonance with para 5 of the judgment would not stop the committee to proceed further. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, it is to be seen that whether the report placed on the record at page 42 and 46 of this writ petition fulfils the requirements of para 12(5) of the aforesaid judgment. ( 9. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, it is to be seen that whether the report placed on the record at page 42 and 46 of this writ petition fulfils the requirements of para 12(5) of the aforesaid judgment. ( 9. ) THE report dated 19-5-2003 Annexure P-8 shows that there is no application of mind and the requirement of para 12(5) are not fulfilled in this report dated 19-5-2003. THEre is no finding about school record, birth certificate etc. THE statement of parents and guardian are not recorded. So far as the report dated 24-11-2003 is concerned, it is also a sketchy report. This report also shows that there is no whisper about examining the records of the petitioner regarding his qualification, birth certificate etc. THE statement of certain complainants were recorded and on the basis of that, in two paragraphs it is held that petitioner belongs to "Bhunjiya" community. In the considered opinion of this Court, reports are not in consonance with the requirement of judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhuri Patil (supra). Since these reports do not fulfil the requirement of the aforesaid, the same cannot be binding on the committee and as per para 12(7) of the judgment, it was open for the committee to proceed further. THErefore, the contention of Shri Dalal that as per clause 3 of circular dated 8-9- 1997, it was not open for the Committee to proceed further after receiving S.P.'s report has to be and accordingly negatived. THE second attack on the report is that it is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. It is not as per the requirement of the Supreme Court judgment wherein it is held that the said proceedings are quasi-judicial in nature (Ravi Prakash). It is gathered that the petitioner filed his own detailed affidavit which is placed on record at page 28. THE petitioner filled up the prescribed format Annexure P-6 and provided details against each and every entry of the prescribed proforma. ( 10. ) A Committee which is quasi-judicial in nature is under a legal obligation to deal with every defence taken by the petitioner. However the Committee has only recorded that on perusal of S. P. report, statement of non- applicants and on the basis of available documents, the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe community. ( 10. ) A Committee which is quasi-judicial in nature is under a legal obligation to deal with every defence taken by the petitioner. However the Committee has only recorded that on perusal of S. P. report, statement of non- applicants and on the basis of available documents, the petitioner does not belong to scheduled tribe community. For arriving to this conclusion, a legal notice sent by Advocate under section 80, Civil Procedure Code was also taken into account. The Supreme Court in catena of judgments has held that the conclusion should be based on reasons. It is held that reasons are heart beat of conclusions and in absence of reasons, no conclusions can sustain judicial scrutiny. In recent judgment of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in 2011(1) Mh. L.J. (S.C.) 691 = (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Apex Court has laid down the necessity for providing reasons for quasi- judicial and administrative authorities. The relevant para reads as under :- "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decisionmaking not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process". This judgment makes it crystal clear that quasi-judicial authority has to deal with every aspect of defence taken by the petitioner by a reasoned order. ( 11. ) APPLYING the aforesaid litmus test laid down by the Supreme Court, it would show that the impugned order is based on conclusion without there being any reasons for the same. No reasons are assigned by the Committee as to why affidavit filed by the petitioner is not found to be trustworthy. There is no whisper about the said affidavit filed by the petitioner before the committee. No reasons are assigned by the Committee as to why affidavit filed by the petitioner is not found to be trustworthy. There is no whisper about the said affidavit filed by the petitioner before the committee. The entries made by the petitioner in Annexure P-6 are also not discussed and no reasons are assigned as to why the defence and description given by the petitioner are not found to be trustworthy by the said committee. ( 12. ) IN the light of the aforesaid, impugned order Annexure P-2 does not fulfil the requirement of principles of natural justice and such an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to quash and set aside the order dated 17-7-2007 Annexure P-2. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order Annexure P-2 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Caste Verification Committee from the stage of passing of final order. Needless to mention that the said Committee has to pass fresh order in accordance with the judgment passed in Madhuri Patil (supra) and in accordance with law. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The said Committee shall issue fresh notice to the parties and shall try to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months. No costs. Petition allowed.