Govindsingh Jitendrasingh ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 6626 Bom

     2211WP5563.16-Judgment                                                                         1/3


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                              
                            NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                                    
                         WRIT PETITION NO.  5563    OF    2016

     PETITIONER :-                        Govindsingh   Jitendrasingh   Thakur,   age   23
                                          years,   Occ.   Student,   R/o.   Near   Hanuman




                                                                   
                                          Mandir, Sati Fail, Khamgaon, Tq. Khamgaon,
                                          Dist. Buldhana. 

                                             ...VERSUS... 




                                                   
     RESPONDENTS :-                  1) The   State   of   Maharashtra,   Through   its
                                        Secretary, Tribal Development Department,
                               ig       Mantralaya, Mumbai. 

                                     2) The   Scheduled   Tribe   Caste   Certificate
                                        Scrutiny   Committee,   Through   its   Member
                             
                                        Secretary, Amravati, Division Amravati. 

                                     3) The   Principal   Siddhivinayak   Technical
                                        Campus, School of Engineering & Research
                                        Technology,   Shegaon   Road,   Khamgaon,
      


                                        Dist. Buldhana.  
   



     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Mr. K. S. Narwade, counsel for the petitioner.
        Ms Tajwar Khan, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
                       Ms Kirti Deshpande, counsel h/f Mr. A. Bhate, 





                                counsel for the respondent No.3. 
     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                            CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                        MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI,   JJ.

DATED : 22.11.2016

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition

is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

      2211WP5563.16-Judgment                                                                2/3


     2)               By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of




                                                                                      

the Scrutiny Committee dated 29/06/2016 and seeks a direction

against the Scrutiny Committee to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner on merits.

3) The caste claim of the petitioner was submitted to the

respondent-Scrutiny Committee for verification. According to the

petitioner, the petitioner was informed by the Scrutiny Committee vide

communication dated 08/06/2016 about the deficiencies in the

application of the petitioner for verification of caste claim. According to

the petitioner, the petitioner had cured the deficiencies by furnishing

the necessary documents to the Scrutiny Committee on 24/06/2016. It

is stated that though the deficiencies were cured on 24/06/2016,

without noticing the said position, the Scrutiny Committee has refused

to verify the caste claim of the petitioner by observing in the impugned

order that the petitioner has not cured the deficiencies, despite

opportunity.

4) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a

perusal of the documents annexed to the writ petition as also the order

of the Scrutiny Committee, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee was

not justified in refusing to verify the caste claim of the petitioner and

confiscate the caste certificate on the ground that the petitioner had

failed to cure the deficiencies in the application for verification despite

the grant of opportunity. We find that the petitioner has submitted the

2211WP5563.16-Judgment 3/3

necessary documents to the Scrutiny Committee, after the Scrutiny

Committee asked the petitioner to cure the deficiencies. There is an

acknowledgement in the inward register of despatch clerk about

furnishing of the documents by the petitioner on 24/06/2016. The

Scrutiny Committee has wrongfully probably not noticed that the

petitioner has tendered the documents and has refused to verify the

caste claim of the petitioner. In any case, even if some documents are

not tendered by the petitioner, it would be necessary for the Scrutiny

Committee to grant some time to the petitioner to tender the documents

and then decide the caste claim of the petitioner on merits.

5) Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is

allowed. The order of the Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside.

The Scrutiny Committee is directed to decide the caste claim of the

petitioner on merits, in accordance with law. If the Scrutiny Committee

is of the view that some deficiencies are still required to be cured, the

Scrutiny Committee should grant a reasonable opportunity to the

petitioner to cure the deficiencies. Rule is made absolute in the

aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                                JUDGE                                            JUDGE 


     KHUNTE