Bombay High Court
Rajendra Murlidhar Dalal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & 4 Others on 12 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
WP 412/00 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 412/2000
1. Rajendra Murlidhar Dalal,
Aged about 36 years,
r/o Manewada Winkar Colony,
Qtr. No.112, Nagpur.
2. Devendra Murlidhar Dalal,
Aged about 24 years,
BE in Civil Engineering,
at present unemployed,
r/o Qtr.No.112, Manewada Vinkar
Colony, Nagpur. PETITIONERS
ig .....VERSUS.....
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary,
Tribal Welfare Department,
Mumbai-400032.
2. The Committee For Scrutiny &
Verification of Tribe Claims,
through its Dy. Director, Adivasi
Vikas Bhavan, Giripeth, Nagpur.
3. Superintending Engineer (Elect.),
Public Works Department,
Bungalow No.39, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. Executive Engineer (Electrical),
Public Works Department,
Bungalow No.39, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. Police Station Office,
Police Station Paoni, Dist. Bhandara. RESPONDENTS
Shri R.D.Karode, Advocate holding for Shri R.C. Madkholkar, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri A.M. Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.
CORAM :SMT.VASANTI A NAIK AND
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 12 TH AUGUST, 2016.
WP 412/00 2 Judgment
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT.VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the
respondent-Scrutiny Committee invalidating the claim of the petitioner of
belonging to Halba Scheduled Tribe. The petitioners claim of belonging
to Halba Scheduled Tribe and the caste claim of the petitioners was
referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification. The Scrutiny
Committee, by a common order, dated 24.08.1999, invalidated the claim
of both the petitioners. The said common order is impugned by the
petitioners in the instant petition.
2. Shri Karode, the learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia,
submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioners
were not served with a notice and were not afforded an opportunity of
hearing before their caste claim was rejected. It is stated that after the
vigilance enquiry was conducted, the petitioners were not served with a
show cause notice and they were not heard.
3. Shri Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, states on the basis of the original
record that is produced in the Court, today, that though a notice was
issued to the petitioner no.1 for remaining present for hearing, it was
issued on a wrong address. It is fairly admitted that no notice was issued
to the petitioner no.2, at all.
WP 412/00 3 Judgment
4. On a perusal of the original Record & Proceedings and in view
of the fair admission made on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee, it would
be necessary to quash and set aside the impugned order as admittedly,
the petitioners were not granted an opportunity before their caste claim
was rejected.
5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matters in respect of
both the petitioners are remanded to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh
decision, in accordance with law. The interim order passed by this Court
would continue till the caste claims are decided. Since it is informed to
this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners
have not contacted their counsel during the recent past, the Scrutiny
Committee should ensure that a notice is served on the petitioners before
their caste claims are verified.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
WP 412/00 4 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.
