1 wp6391.11.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.6391/2011
Lukmansha Usmansha,
aged about 24 years, Occ. Agriculture/
Labour, r/o At Post Kothali, Tah. Motala,
Dist. Buldhana. .....PETITIONER
...V E R S U S...
1. The Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee No.2, through its Chairman/
Secretary, Collectorate Premises,
Administrative Building, 2nd Floor,
Akola-444 001.
2. The Tahsildar,
Gram Panchayat, Kothali,
Tah. Motala, Dist. Buldhana.
3. The Collector, Buldhana. ...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri A. P. Chaware, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D. P. Thakare, Addl. G. P. for respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED :-
MARCH 17, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.) By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Chapparband, Vimukta Jatis (A).
Inter alia, the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the vigilance inquiry was not conducted in the matters of the caste claim matter as per the directions of the Hon'ble ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:34:59 ::: 2 wp6391.11.odt Supreme Court in the matter of Madhuri Patil, reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, as the vigilance cell had not recorded the statements of the family members and the relatives of the petitioner and the research officer was also not associated with the vigilance cell. It is stated that since the mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not followed while conducting the vigilance inquiry, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the scrutiny committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner in accordance with law.
Shri Thakare, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee states that it appears from the vigilance report that though the petitioner's statement is recorded and the statements of the neighbours, police patil and sarpanch are recorded by the vigilance committee, the statements of the family members or the relatives of the petitioner are not recorded. It is also fairly admitted that it does not appear from the perusal of the copy of the vigilance cell report that the research officer was associated with the vigilance cell while conducting the inquiry.
On a perusal of the vigilance report, it appears that the mandatory directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) were not followed by the vigilance cell while conducting the inquiry. It is apparent from the statements of the neighbours that the family of the petitioner was residing in the ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:34:59 ::: 3 wp6391.11.odt neighbourhood and if that is so, it was incumbent on the part of the vigilance cell to have recorded the statements of the family members and near relatives of the petitioner while conducting the inquiry. Also, a research officer ought to have been associated with the vigilance cell while conducting the inquiry. However, since this was not done and the mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to the scrutiny committee for a fresh decision on merits, after conducting the vigilance inquiry.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the scrutiny committee for deciding the caste claim of the petitioner afresh on merits, in accordance with law within a period of 9 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the committee. The petitioner undertakes to appear before the committee on 03.04.2017 so that the service of notice on the petitioner could be dispensed with.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.) (Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J.) kahale ::: Uploaded on - 22/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2017 00:34:59 :::