Bombay High Court
Bhupendra Devidas Ingle vs State Of Maharashtra & 2 Ors on 22 March, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp57-03
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.57 of 2003
Bhupendra Devidas Ingle
Aged about 34 years, Occupation Service,
R/o Tembhurna, Tahsil 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, Amravati.
3. Superintending Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
Buldana, Dist. Buldhana. ... ... Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Parsodkar, counsel for petitioner.
Mrs. Taiwade, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. R.E. Moharir, counsel for respondent no.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE : 22nd March, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Shri R.S. Parsodkar is stated to be not available. Advocate
Lokhande holding for him therefore sought adjournment. However, after
2 wp57-03
adjournment was rejected he agreed to assist to the Court.
2. We also heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for
respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate Moharir for respondent no.3.
3. This court had on 13.1.2003 issued notice in the matter and
directed the parties to maintain status quo. Shri Moharir submits that because
of this interim order which continues to operate even today, the petitioner is
in employment.
4. Challenge in this petition is to adjudication dated 25.11.2002 by
respondent no.2 Committee invalidating caste claim of petitioner as
belonging to 'Thakur' Scheduled Tribe.
5. The order has been questioned on various grounds. However, we
find that petitioner has specifically asserted on affidavit that notice of hearing
scheduled on 30.09.2002 came to be served upon him on 30.09.2002 itself
and therefore he could not appear on that date before respondent no.2
Committee.
6. The respective counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3
state that when matter was taken up for hearing on earlier occasion, this
Court wanted to verify record of Scrutiny Committee as Scrutiny Committee
has not filed any reply rebutting said contention. Learned AGP upon
instructions states that efforts were made to trace out the record and efforts
3 wp57-03
are still going on. It, therefore, appears that respondent no.2 Committee is
not in position to produce the records today before the Court.
7. Petitioner has in addition to other grounds filed an additional
affidavit on 15.1.2016 vide stamp no.666/2016. There he relied upon a
judgment delivered on 23.8.2013 in W.P.No. 2506/2005 by this Court where
validity has been given to one Vaishali Chatarsingh Ingale (Thakur).
Petitioner claims that Vaishali is his cousin sister.
8. However, on record we do not have any family tree to verify this
relationship.
9. In this situation, as we find that petitioner was not given
opportunity of hearing, the matter needs to be sent back.
10. Learned AGP has invited our attention to conduct of petitioner as
noted in impugned order. She points out that though before 30.9.2002
petitioner was called for hearing on 26.8.2002 and thereafter on 16.9.2002,
he failed to appear. Therefore, one more opportunity was given to him and
he was called for hearing on 30.9.2002.
11. We find that notice for hearing was issued from Amravati to
petitioner who was residing at Buldhana. First notice was issued on
20.8.2002 and the hearing was kept just within six days i.e. on 26.8.2002.
The date of second notice is not mentioned. Petitioner has specifically
4 wp57-03
pointed out that notice for hearing scheduled on 30.9.2002 was received on
that date only.
12. We, therefore, find that in this situation petitioner cannot be
blamed for remaining absent before the Scrutiny Committee.
13. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated
25.11.2002. Matter is placed back to respondent no. 2 Scrutiny Committee
for taking fresh decision after giving the petitioner necessary opportunity.
14. Petitioner shall appear before respondent no.2 Committee on
16.5.2016 and shall abide by its further instructions in the matter. Petitioner
shall be free to file a copy of certificate of validity given to his relative before
the respondent no.2 Committee. The respondent no.2 Committee shall then
proceed further to adjudicate the caste claim in accordance with law. The
adjudication shall be completed preferably within next one year.
15. Writ petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Hirekhan
