Amanullah Khan Rasul Khan Pathan vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3971 Bom

                                               {1}
                                                                           wp1249215.odt

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                                 
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                      WRIT PETITION NO.12492 OF 2015 




                                                         
     Amanullah Khan s/o Rasul Khan
     Pathan, age: 60 years, Occ: Retired
     Government Servant, R/o Hajipura,
     Mali Galli, Tq. Dist. Beed.                                  Petitioner




                                                        
                      Versus

     01 State of Maharashtra,
          Tribal Development Department,




                                           
          through the Secretary,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                             
     02 Scheduled Tribe Certificate 
          Scrutiny Committee,
          Aurangabad region, through the
                            
          Member/Secretary,
          Aurangabad.                                             Respondents
      

     Mr.P.P.Mandlik,  advocate for the petitioner.
     Mr.M.B.Bharaswadkar, A.G.P. for Respondents. 
   



      
                                                CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
                                                              K.L.WADANE, JJ.

                                               DATE    : 19th   July, 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):
      
     1        Heard.     Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith   and 

heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

2 The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee directing invalidation of caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the certificate has not been issued by the competent authority.

{2} wp1249215.odt

3 The petitioner contends that he is resident of Beed and his father was also resident of Beed district and there is evidence

of the year 1948 indicating residence of father of the petitioner in Beed district. The petitioner contends that he has not been extended an opportunity of hearing by the Scrutiny Committee

before rejecting his claim for verification of caste certificate.

4 It is not a matter of controversy that before passing the

impugned order, petitioner was not extended an opportunity of

hearing and the order has been issued by the Scrutiny Committee in violation of principles of natural justice. In this view of the matter, order impugned in this petition, passed by the Scrutiny

Committee on 26.08.2014, deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be remitted back to the Scrutiny Committee for reconsideration.

5 In the result, order impugned in this petition, passed by the Scrutiny Committee on 26.08.2014, is quashed and set aside and the Scrutiny Committee is directed to take decision on

the proposal for verification of caste certificate of the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.

6 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

              K.L.WADANE                                     R.M.BORDE
                   JUDGE                                        JUDGE