Bombay High Court
Chandansing Sadhusing Chandel vs State Of Mah.Thr. Its Secretary. & ... on 9 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/3 0906wp4050.98-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4050 OF 1998
PETITIONER :- Chandansing Sadhusing Chandel, aged 54
years, Municipal Councillor, Residing of
Shivaji Ward, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Ministry of Tribal Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
ig 2. Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, through its Deputy Director and
Member Secretary, having its office at
Adivasi Vikas Bhawan, Giripeth, Amravati
Road, Nagpur.
3. Sunanda wife of Madhukar Atram,
Municipal Councillor, Resident of
Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Ballarpur, District
Chandrapur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ambarish Joshi, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 & 2.
None for the respondent No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 09.06.2016
2/3 0906wp4050.98-Judgment
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order of
the Scrutiny Committee, dated 15/12/1998 invalidating the claim of
the petitioner of belonging to Thakur Scheduled Tribe.
2. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
the order of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set aside, as the
mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ku.Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal
Development, Thane and others, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581 have
not been followed. It is stated that though the vigilance enquiry was
conducted in the caste claim of the petitioner and the Vigilance Report
dated 27/11/1998 was prepared by the Vigilance Cell, the Vigilance
Officer did not record the statements of the parents and near relatives
of the petitioner. It is stated that in view of the non compliance of the
mandatory directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned
order is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remanded to
the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision on the caste claim of the
petitioner
3. Shri Ambarish Joshi, the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-Scrutiny Committee, states that a
proper vigilance enquiry was conducted in the matter. It is, however,
fairly stated on a perusal of the Vigilance Report that it appears that the
statements of the parents and near relatives of the petitioner were not
3/3 0906wp4050.98-Judgment
recorded by the Vigilance Officer.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a
perusal of the Vigilance Report, it appears that the submission made on
behalf of the petitioner needs to be upheld. It is apparent from a
perusal of the Vigilance Report that the Vigilance Officer has not
conducted the enquiry as required by the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 2581. It
appears that the Vigilance Officer has not recorded the statements of
the parents and near relatives of the petitioner before preparing the
report, dated 27/11/1998. Since one of the mandatory directions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid reported judgment has not
been followed, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. 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, on merits. Since the petitioner has not contacted
the counsel in the recent past, the Scrutiny Committee may decide the
caste claim of the petitioner only after ensuring that a notice is duly
served on the petitioner before his caste claim is decided. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
