Bombay High Court
Ku. Viashali Satish Patkar vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 20 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.3784.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3784/2016
Ku. Vaishali Satish Patkar
Aged about 34 years, occu: service
R/o New B.P.T. Colony
Nadkarni Park
Wadala (East) Antop Hill, Mumbai. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Department of Tribal Welfare &
Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
/ Verification Committee, Amravati
Through its Secretary/Deputy Director
Near Government General Hospital
Irvin Chowk, Amravati, Dist. Amravati.
3) Executive Magistrate, Akola
Dist. Akola.
4) Assistant Secretary (SR)
Manager (SOM)'s Office
Mumbai Port Trust.
Port Bhavan S.V Marg
Mumbai 440 001. .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. R.J.Mirza, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos.1 to 3
Sarang Kalmegh,Adv.for Respondent no.4
............................................................................................................................
wp.3784.16
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 20th July, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Writ Petition is
heard finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
By this Writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Scrutiny Committee, dated 23.5.2016, invalidating the claim of the petitioner
of belonging to 'Koli Mahadeo' Scheduled Tribe.
Inter alia, it is submitted by Shri R.J. Mirza, the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside, as the
mandatory provisions of the Act and the Rules have not been complied with,
inasmuch as the petitioner is not supplied with a copy of the vigilance cell
report. It is stated that it is well-settled that it would be necessary for the
Scrutiny Committee to supply a copy of the vigilance cell report to the
claimant before deciding his/her caste claim. It is stated that since the
mandatory provisions have not been complied with, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.
Mrs. Kalyani Deshpande, the learned Assistant Govenrment
Pleader appearing on behalf of the Scrutiny Committee states on instructions
that it was found by the vigilance cell that the caste certificate of the petitioner
wp.3784.16
was fraudulently secured and it is not a genuine document. It is, however,
fairly admitted that the report of the vigilance cell was not served on the
petitioner, before the caste claim of the petitioner was decided.
Since the mandatory provisions have not been complied with, before
deciding the caste claim of the petitioner, the impugned order cannot be
sustained. Since the Scrutiny Committee has fairly admitted that the vigilance
cell report was not supplied to the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to
be set aside.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is allowed. The
impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent-Scrutiny Committee
is directed to decide the caste claim of the petitioner within a period of six
months in accordance with law. Till the caste claim of the petitioner is
decided, her services are protected.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.3784.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 22.07.2016.
