1 judg wp 56.03.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 56/2003
Vijay Vishwanath Donge.
Aged about 54 years, Occupation- Service,
R/o.-Ward No.1, Madan Plots,
Khamgaon, Taluka Khamgaon,
District Buldhana. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1] State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.
2] Deputy Director, Scheduled Tribe,
Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amarawati.
3] Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Buldhana. R
ESPONDENTS
Shri G.G. Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the respondent no.3.
Shri V.P. Maldhure, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
Coram : Smt. Vasanti A Naik &
Kum. Indira Jain, JJ.
Dated : 30 August, 2016.
th ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 25-11-2002 invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to "Thakur"-Scheduled Tribe.
Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner inter alia challenges ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:26:37 ::: 2 judg wp 56.03.odt the order of the Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the vigilance enquiry is not conducted in the matter of the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 (Kum. Madhuri Patil and another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others) and AIR 1995 SC 94 (Kum. Madhuri Patil and another vs Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others). It is stated that instead of recording the statements of the relatives and the family members of the petitioner, the Vigilance Cell has recorded the statement of only Meenabai the wife of the petitioner. It is stated that it was necessary for the Vigilance Cell to have recorded the statements of the relatives belonging to the Donge family and recording the statement of the wife of the petitioner was not relevant. It is stated that while conducting the vigilance enquiry, a Research Officer, as required by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 was not associated with the Vigilance Cell. It is stated that since the mandatory directions that are required to be followed by the Vigilance Cell, while conducting the enquiry, are not followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Shri Maldhure, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Scrutiny Committee has supported the order of the Scrutiny Committee.
It is submitted that the petitioner did not show his affinity to "Thakur"-Scheduled Tribe and hence his caste claim was invalidated. It is however fairly stated after perusing the copy of the Vigilance Report at Annexure-IV that it does not appear from the Vigilance Report that the ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:26:37 ::: 3 judg wp 56.03.odt statements of the relatives from the Donge family to which the petitioner belongs were recorded by the Vigilance Cell. It is admitted that it does not appear from the Vigilance Report at Annexure-IV that the Research Officer was associated with the Vigilance Cell while the enquiry was conducted.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the Vigilance Report at Annexure-IV, it appears that the mandatory directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another (supra), are not followed by the Vigilance Cell while conducting the vigilance enquiry. The statements of the persons belonging to the family of Vijay Vishwanath Donge are not recorded by the Vigilance Cell and only a statement of Meenabai Donge, the wife of the petitioner was recorded. The statement of no other relative of the petitioner was recorded by the Vigilance Cell. It also does not appear from the copy of the Vigilance Report that a Research Officer was associated with the Vigilance Cell while the enquiry was conducted. It is thus clear that the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another (supra) were not followed while conducting the vigilance enquiry.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on the caste claim of the petitioner, in accordance with law. Since it is informed to this Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not contacted his Counsel in the ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:26:37 ::: 4 judg wp 56.03.odt recent past, the Scrutiny Committee should ensure that the petitioner is served with a notice, before the caste claim of the petitioner is decided.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUD
GE
Deshmukh
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:26:37 :::
5 judg wp 56.03.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on :
(Deshmukh) 02/09/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 03/09/2016 00:26:37 :::