Bombay High Court
Pramod S/O Vitthal Dongre vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 29 June, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.3001.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 3001/2016
Pramod s/o Vitthal Dongre
Aged about 30 years, occu; Nil
Resident of Gurunagar Ward
Opp: Bus Stand, Bhadravati
Dist. Chandrapur. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) State of Maharashtra
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Tribal Welfare and
Social Justice Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai- 400 032.
2) Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate
Scrutiny Committee,Gadchiroli
Through its Deputy Director. .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.Kunal Nalamwar, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.Amit Balpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos.1 & 2
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 29 June, 2016
th
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, J.)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:36 :::
wp.3001.16
2
2. By this Writ Petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated
14.12.2015, passed by the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny
Committee/respondent no.2, invalidating the claim of the petitioner as
belonging to 'Halba' Scheduled Tribe.
3. Shri Kunal Nalamwar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the Vigilance Cell report was never served upon the petitioner
and based on the said vigilance report, the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated
the tribe claim of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioner,
in regard to the said vigilance report.
4. Shri Amit Balpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
fairly admitted that the vigilance cell report was not served upon the petitioner
and his explanation/say on the report, was never sought.
5. After hearing both sides and on a careful scrutiny of the
documents, it is noticed that the vigilance cell report was not served upon the
petitioner at any point of time. The said report makes a reference to a
document showing an entry that in the year 1924, the grandfather of the
petitioner was shown as belonging to 'Koshti' community. Based on the
report of the Vigilance Cell, the Scrutiny Committee has invalidated the caste
claim of the petitioner. We are of the clear view that the Scrutiny Committee
ought to have served a copy of the vigilance report on the petitioner as the
service of the same upon the claimant, is mandatory. Under these
::: Uploaded on - 07/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:31:36 :::
wp.3001.16
3
circumstances, it is necessary to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee.
Hence the order:-
ORDER
i) The impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee, dated
14.12.2015, is hereby quashed and set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh disposal, in
accordance with law.
iii)
The Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the
petitioner within a period of six months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
