Bombay High Court
Vijay Vishwanath Donge vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors on 30 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
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
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
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
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
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.
