Bombay High Court
Vaibhav S/O Sanjay Bhalerao vs The Scheduled Tribe Caste ... on 22 April, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP2587.14[J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2587 OF 2014
Vaibhav s/o Sanjay Bhalerao,
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation - Service,
R/o. Katol, District-Nagpur. .. Petitioner
.. Versus ..
The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee, Adiwasi Vikas Bhavan,
Giripeth, Nagpur. .. Respondent
..........
Shri Kunal Nalamwar, counsel for the petitioner,
Shri A.M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent.
..........
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 22, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of the
Scrutiny Committee, dated 12.6.2006 invalidating the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
The petitioner claims to belong to Thakur Scheduled Tribe
and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee for verification. Since the caste claim was not decided, the
petitioner filed Writ Petition No.3001/2006 for a direction to the
Scrutiny Committee for a decision within a time frame. The said writ
petition was partly allowed and the petitioner was directed to appear
before the Scrutiny Committee on 25.7.2006 at 11.00 a.m. With the
aforesaid directions, the writ petition was disposed of by protecting the
education of the petitioner till his caste claim was decided. The Scrutiny
Committee, by the impugned order, dated 12.6.2006, has invalidated
the caste claim of the petitioner.
Shri Nalamwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Scrutiny Committee did not grant an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner before invalidating his caste claim. It is
submitted that while disposing of Writ Petition No.3001/2006, this court
had directed the petitioner to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on
25.7.2006 at 11.00 a.m. for hearing. It is submitted that even before the
said date, the order was passed by the Scrutiny Committee on
12.6.2006. It is submitted that the petitioner had presented himself
before the Scrutiny Committee on 25.7.2006 and the order of the
Scrutiny Committee depicts that it is signed by the members on
27.7.2006, though the earlier part of the order shows that the same was
passed on 12.6.2006. It is submitted that even before hearing the
petitioner, the order was prepared by the Scrutiny Committee on
12.6.2006. It is submitted that in any case the petitioner was not heard
by the respondent - Scrutiny Committee and a direction is liable to be
issued to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee for passing a fresh order
on the caste claim of the petitioner after hearing him. It is submitted
that though the petitioner has raised several grounds for challenging the
impugned order on merits, the petitioner restricts the argument at this
stage, only in respect of the aforesaid ground.
Shri Joshi, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent - Scrutiny Committee referred to the
affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee and
submitted that the order of the Scrutiny Committee was passed on
12.6.2006. It is submitted that the date mentioned at the end of the
order of the Scrutiny Committee i.e. 27.7.2006, is the date on which the
copy of the order was dispatched to the petitioner by registered post
acknowledgement due. It is, however, admitted that the petitioner was
not heard on 25.7.2006, as directed by this Court, as the order was
passed on 12.6.2006.
On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that
an opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to the petitioner in
the matter of verification of his caste claim. In the previous writ petition
filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had sought a direction to the
Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the petitioner. In the
said writ petition, on 18.7.2006, this court directed the Scrutiny
Committee to hear the petitioner on 25.7.2006. It appears that the
petitioner was not heard on the said date. On a perusal of the order of
the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that at the beginning of the order,
the date of the order is mentioned as 12.6.2006 and at the end of the
order, the date is reflected as 27.7.2006. There was no reason for the
Scrutiny Committee to mention the date on which the order is
dispatched to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due, at
the end of the order. The date on which the order was actually passed
appears to be doubtful. It is not possible for this court to come to a
definite conclusion, whether the order was passed on 12.6.2006 or
27.7.2006. It is possible to believe that the order also could have been
passed on 27.7.2006 as in the presence of the counsel for the Scrutiny
Committee, this court had disposed of earlier writ petition filed by the
petitioner by directing the Scrutiny Committee to hear the petitioner on
25.7.2006. In this background, an opportunity of hearing is required.
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 merits.
The petitioner undertakes to appear before the Scrutiny Committee on
16.5.2016.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande, PA
