Bombay High Court
Deorao Parnuji Padile vs Committee For Scrutiny & ... on 12 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 1040/00 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 1040/2000
Deorao Parnuji Padile,
aged about 48 years, Occ. Service,
r/o B-112/8, Govt. Colony,
Bandra-East, Mumbai-51. PETITIONER
.....VERSUS.....
1. Committee for Scrutiny and
Verification of the Tribe Claim,
through its Presiding Member,
Opposite R.T.O., Giripeth, Nagpur.
2. State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Samachar Marg,
P.B. No.13, Mumbai - 23,
through its Personal Officer. RESPONDENTS
Shri S.A. Lambat, Advocate holding for Shri A.C. Dharmadhikari, counsel for the
petitioner.
Ms Ritu V. Kalia, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1.
None for the respondent no.2.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 12 TH AUGUST, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Scrutiny Committee, dated 24.05.1999, invalidating the claim of the
petitioner of belonging to Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe.
WP 1040/00 2 Judgment
2. The petitioner claimed to belong to Gond Gowari Scheduled
Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny
Committee, for verification. The petitioner tendered some documents
before the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee, after
considering the vigilance report, invalidated the claim of the petitioner of
belonging to Gond Gowari Scheduled Tribe. The order of the Scrutiny
Committee is impugned by the petitioner in the instant petition.
3.
Inter alia, the petitioner has challenged the order of the
Scrutiny Committee on the ground that the vigilance cell has not
followed the procedure as laid down by the judgment in the case of
Madhuri Patil Versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development,
reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, as also the judgment in the case
between the same parties, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581. It is
stated that as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgment reported in AIR 1995 SC 94, the vigilance officer has not
examined the parents and the relatives of the petitioner while making
the enquiry. It is stated by referring to the vigilance report that a
Research Officer was not associated with the vigilance cell and has not
endorsed the finding in regard to the social status of the petitioner, as
required by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in
AIR 1997 SC 2581.
WP 1040/00 3 Judgment
4. Ms Kalia, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, on a perusal
of the vigilance report at Annexure-E, fairly states that it does not appear
from the said report that the vigilance officers had recorded a statement
of the parents and the relatives of the petitioner. It is stated that it
appears from the vigilance report that the vigilance officer had only
visited the primary school at Chikhli to peruse the admission record of the
petitioner and his relatives. It is fairly admitted on a perusal of the
vigilance report that the Research Officer has not endorsed the finding of
the vigilance cell and was not associated with the Cell, as required by the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581.
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the impugned order, the vigilance cell report as also the
reported judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that the
impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The
mandatory directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two
aforesaid judgments have not been followed before deciding the caste
claim of the petitioner. Though a vigilance enquiry was made in the caste
claim of the petitioner, the vigilance officer had not recorded the
statements of the parents or the near relatives and friends of the
petitioner and the Research Officer was also not associated with the
vigilance cell. Since the mandatory directions issued by the Hon'ble
WP 1040/00 4 Judgment
Supreme Court in the aforesaid reported judgments have not been
complied with, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. 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. The interim order passed
by this Court would continue till the caste claim of the petitioner is
decided. Since the petitioner has not contacted the learned counsel in the
recent past, we direct the Scrutiny Committee to ensure that a notice is
served on the petitioner, before the caste claim of the petitioner is
decided.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 1040/00 5 Judgment
CERTIFICATE
I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.
Uploaded by: Rohit D. Apte. Uploaded on : 12.08.2016.
