Bombay High Court
Devidas Laxman Pithe vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 30 March, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
k
1/5
27 wp 7486.14 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7486 OF 2014
Devidas Laxman Pithe
residing at Plot No.42,
Sector 19, Kamothe, Taluka:Panvel
District: Raigad ..... Petitioner
V/s
1.State of Maharashtra
2. Schedule Tribe Certificate
Scrutiny Committee
3.Mumbai Port Trust ..... Respondents
Mr. R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner.
Mr. V.N. Sagare, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b M/s. M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent No.3.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATED : 30 MARCH 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per Anoop V.Mohta, J.)
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. By consent, heard learned Counsel for
the parties forthwith finally.
2 The Petitioner has challenged the order dated 19 November 2011
passed by the Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, whereby his caste claim "Koli
Mahadeo" was not accepted.
3 Based upon the decision of the said Respondent No.2-Scrutiny
k
27 wp 7486.14 as.doc
Committee, prior to filing of the present Petition, Respondent No.3-
Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai terminated the services of the Petitioner by
an order dated 2 August 2014. The Petitioner therefore filed present
Petition on 7 August 2014. The Respondents have filed their Reply.
4 After going through the submissions and the reasons given by the
Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, we have noted that the basic
submission of Petitioner as recorded specifically in Ground no.3 to the
Petition which is reproduced as under:
"(iii) It is respectfully submitted that the documents
submitted by the petitioner alongwith his application dated
19.7.2013 in nature of Village Extract No.6 and 7/12 Extracts
in respect of great grandfather viz. Nagya Hari Pithya,
grandfather viz. Gopal Nagya Pithya, father viz. Laxman
Gopal Pithya, real uncle viz. Mahadev Gopal Pithya which
shows that these persons holding adivasi land among other
members of the community and further in the said record it
has specifically mentioned that these land belongs to Katkari,
Thakar, Mahadev Koli and Dongar Koli which proves that
grandfather of the petitioner belongs to Mahadev Koli, this
record pertains to the year 1948, after the death of the
grandfather of the petitioner, in the land record names of the
father and real uncle of the petitioner are recorded as heirs of
the grandfather. Considering these Pre-Constitutional
documents the tribe claim of the petitioner is required to be
reconsidered in view of principal of natural justice."
k
27 wp 7486.14 as.doc
5 This goes to the root of the matter so far as the claim of the
Petitioner that he belongs to "Koli Mahadeo" caste. Even one or two
supporting documents to support the caste claim of the Petitioner are
relevant. It is necessary for the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to
take into consideration those documents before rejecting said claim.
6 In view of the submission so raised alongwith the documents
which are placed on record, we are inclined to observe that those
documents need specific attention before coming to the conclusion as
done in the present case and as the same is missing, therefore,
according to us, a case is made out for remand of the matter to
Respondent No.2- Scrutiny Committee. In the interest of justice, to give
one more opportunity to the Petitioner and by considering the service of
the Petitioner since 2006 as Safaiwala, therefore, we are inclined to
remand the matter for reconsideration. The impugned order dated 19
November 2011 is required to be quashed with a direction to Respondent
No.2-Scrutiny Committee to deal with the case of the Petitioner afresh by
considering the documents so recorded in the submissions/grounds so
raised.
7 Liberty is granted to the Petitioner to place additional documents, if
any, within four weeks. The Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee to
decide the caste claim of the Petitioner afresh in accordance with law as
early as possible preferably within six months. To facilitate a fresh
k
27 wp 7486.14 as.doc
hearing, the impugned order of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee is
set aside.
8 Having quashed and set aside the order which was the basis for
terminating the service of the Petitioner, we are inclined to quash and set
aside the termination order dated 2 August 2014 passed by Respondent
No.3-Mumbai Port Trust. However, it is made clear that as the Petitioner
is admittedly not working since 2 August 2014, therefore, there is no
question of granting any back-wages. However, subject to the final
decision of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee and as the Petitioner
was in service since 2006 as Safaiwala, the other benefit including
continuity of service shall be granted to the Petitioner in the event the
order of the Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee favourable to the
Petitioner is passed.
9 This Court in the matter of Saraswati Rajnikant Mayekar vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.8788 of 2013 in
similar situation had passed the consequential order dt.19 -11-2015 after
setting aside the order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee.
10 It is made clear that if adverse order is passed by the Respondent
No.2-Scrutiny Committee against the Petitioner after remand of the
matter, the same should not be implemented for two weeks from the date
of communication of such order to the Petitioner.
k
27 wp 7486.14 as.doc
11 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Writ Petition is
accordingly disposed of with liberty. No order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
katkam
