Bombay High Court
Rajesh Bhimrao Khedkar vs The State Of Mah. & 4 Others on 20 May, 2016
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 wp1572-00
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
Writ Petition No.1572 of 2000
Rajesh Bhimrao Khedkar,
aged about 28 years,
Resident dof Karatkhed,
Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati. ... ... Petitioner.
-Versus -
1. State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Department of Tribal Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Chairman, Scrutiny Committee for
Tribes Verification, Giripeth,
Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Amravati Road,
Nagpur.
3. Executive Magistrate, Daryapur.
4. Panchayat Samiti, Daryapur,
through its Block Development Officer,
5. The Collector, Amravati. ... ... Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for petitioner.
None for respondent no. 4.
Mr. A.V. Palshikar, AGP for respondent nos.1.2.3 and 5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
R.K. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 20th May, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)
Nobody for petitioner or respondent no.4. Learned AGP has
appeared for other respondents including caste scrutiny committee.
2 wp1572-00
2. Learned AGP has invited our attention to the facts of the matter
and also the alternate prayer contained in prayer clause (1). Petitioner has
in alternative sought remand of matter back to Scrutiny Committee.
3. Facts at hand show that petitioner contested election and was
elected as councilor for Panchayat Samiti. Thereafter, he was also elected as
its Vice Chairman. This was way back in 1997. His election as such was
challenged by one Yogeshwari Chavhan in Election Appeal No. 2/1997. That
appeal/election petition under section 58 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishad
and Panchayat Samiti Act was dismissed by Additional District Judge,
Achalpur on 12.2.1999. Petitioner claims that said Yogeshwari Chavhan has
also filed Writ Petition no. 2159/1998 and that petition is pending before
this Court.
4. In the meanwhile, a complaint was also moved before respondent
no. 2 Scrutiny Committee and respondent no. 2 committee thereafter
proceeded to verify caste claim of petitioner as belonging to 'Koli Mahadeo'
Scheduled Tribe. By impugned order dated 23.2.2000, caste claim has been
invalidated. This order of Scrutiny Committee came to be stayed on
3.2.2000 and interim order granted has been continued on 12.6.2001 while
issuing rule in this matter.
3 wp1572-00
5. One of the contentions in petition is about jurisdiction of
respondent no.2 committee to take cognizance of private complaint that too
after dismissal of election petition. As rightly pointed out by learned AGP,
tenure of petitioner as elected councilor has expired some time in the year
2002 itself. As such, invalidation of caste claim cannot result in invalidation
of his election as a councilor.
6. We have perused order of Scrutiny Committee. The order is very
short and only adverse material appears to be is report of Vigilance Cell
authority. Vigilance Report recorded that petitioner and his forefather
belonged to 'Koli' Caste.
7. Copy of Vigilance Report was allegedly served upon petitioner
along with notice of hearing dated 10.1.2000. Hearing was scheduled on
27.1.2000. The notice has been sent by registered post. Impugned order
nowhere shows that said notice has been served upon the petitioner on any
particular date. Obviously, notice was for remaining present before
Committee on 27.1.2000. Notice has been sent from Nagpur to the petitioner
who resides at a village in Daryapur Tahail in Amravati District. As per
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Kum. Madhuri Patil and another
vs. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others, reported
in AIR 1995 SC 94 after service of such vigilance cell report, 15 days notice
4 wp1572-00
is to be given to petitioner. Whether petitioner got that notice in present
matter is the issue in dispute. In any case, as there is no acknowledgment,
the said fact cannot be ascertained. Petitioner has in petition in paragraph 5
specifically asserted that he received a notice dated 3 rd December, 1998 for
his presence on 15.12.1998 and thereafter he did not receive any notice. He
has also stated that even copy of vigilance cell report is not served upon him.
Respondents have not filed any return denying these assertions.
8. In this situation, it is apparent that petitioner did not receive copy
of vigilance cell report and in any case did not receive reasonable
opportunity to contest the matter before Scrutiny Committee. Hence, only
on that count and keeping all the contentions of petitioner open, we quash
and set aside the order dated 22.3.2000. The matter is restored back to the
file of respondent no. 2 for extending the petitioner fresh opportunity in
accordance with law. Copy of Vigilance Cell Report with a proper notice
giving him adequate time for appearance shall be served upon him and
thereafter respondent no.2 Committee shall proceed to verify the caste claim.
Caste verification shall be in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis),
Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward
Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste
5 wp1572-00
Certificate Act, (Act No.23 of 2001) which has come into force in the
meanwhile.
9. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute
in above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
ig JUDGE
Hirekhan
