Bombay High Court
Pramod Vishnupant Parate (Dead) ... vs State Of Mah. Tribal Development ... on 3 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp2159.05.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2159/2005
PETITIONERS: Shri Pramod Vishnupant Parate
(Dead) through L.Rs.
1) Smt. Prafullata wd/o Pramod Parate,
Aged about 52 years, Occ. : Service.
2) Pranoti d/o Pramod Parate,
ig aged about 24 years, Occ. : Service.
3) Pranav s/o Pramod Parate,
Aged about 19 years, Occ. Student.
All r/o Plot No.C-53, Suyog Aditya
Residency, Bibeywad, Pune - 411 037.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS : 1. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
Tribal Development Deptt., Mantralaya - 32.
2. Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of
Tribe Claims, Amravati Division, Amravati,
through its Deputy Director (R) and
Member-Secretary, having its office at
Amravati, District Amravati.
3. Bank of Maharashtra, through its
General Manager, (IR&P) having its office
at Lok Mangal, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Gopal Mishra, Advocate for petitioner
Shri I.J. Damle, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATE : 03.10.2016
wp2159.05.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK, J.)
By this writ petition, the original petitioner had challenged
the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 1.8.2003 invalidating the claim
of the original petitioner of belonging to Halbi Scheduled Tribe.
The original petitioner Shri Pramod Vishnupant Parate had
joined the services of the respondent no.3 on the post of clerk on
14.3.1984, that was reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. The caste claim of
the original petitioner was referred to the Scrutiny Committee for
verification. The Scrutiny Committee invalidated the claim of the original
petitioner of belonging to Halbi Scheduled Tribe by the order dated
1.8.2003. The original petitioner had impugned the said order in this writ
petition. During the pendency of this writ petition, the original petitioner
has expired and his legal representatives, that is, his widow, his major son
and his major daughter are brought on record.
Shri Mishra, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the order of the Scrutiny Committee is liable to be set
aside as the original petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity of
hearing. It is stated that though the original petitioner was asked to
furnish his explanation in pursuance of the vigilance report, on 13.1.2003
and the original petitioner has submitted the explanation on the said date,
the notice of further hearing, that was scheduled on 14.7.2003, was not
wp2159.05.odt
received by the original petitioner till that date. It is stated that the
original petitioner received the notice of the Scrutiny Committee asking
him to remain present before the Scrutiny committee on 14.7.2003, on
the next day, i.e., 15.7.2003 and hence, the original petitioner could not
attend the hearing on that day. It is submitted that since the Scrutiny
Committee has fixed the matter for hearing of the petitioner on 14.7.2003
and the petitioner could not be heard in view of the aforesaid factual
position, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is
stated that the Scrutiny Committee also committed an error in lightly
brushing aside several old documents of the years 1919, 1940, 1945 and
1951, which showed that the caste of the blood relatives of the original
petitioner was recorded as 'Halbi', by referring to a comparatively new
document in respect of the original petitioner himself, that showed that
the caste of the original petitioner was recorded as 'Halba Koshti' in 1968.
It is stated that normally the Scrutiny Committee rejects the caste claim of
the claimants on the ground that the old documents do not show that
they belong to a particular caste or tribe and in this case, the Scrutiny
Committee has acted otherwise and has discarded the old documents of
the years 1919, 1940 and 1945 on the basis of a comparatively recent
document pertaining to the original petitioner of the year 1968, though
the petitioner has satisfactorily explained about the entry in the recent
wp2159.05.odt
document of the year 1968.
Shri Damle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 2 has supported the
order of the Scrutiny Committee. It is stated that the petitioner was earlier
heard by the Committee on 13.1.2003 and therefore, no further hearing
was required. It is, however, fairly admitted on the basis of the impugned
order that the original petitioner was called for further hearing on
14.7.2003. It is stated that one of the recent documents, that is, caste
validity certificate issued in favour of the sister of the petitioner shows
that her claim of belonging to Halba Koshti was validated. It is stated that
since the original petitioner's own caste was recorded as 'Halba Koshti',
the Scrutiny Committee has rightly rejected his caste claim, more so,
when the original petitioner has failed to prove his affinity towards Halbi
Scheduled Tribe.
On a perusal of the writ petition and the order of the
Scrutiny Committee we find that though the original petitioner was called
for hearing on 14.7.2003, the original petitioner did not receive the notice
for hearing till 15.7.2003 and he was not heard on 14.7.2003 before the
Scrutiny Committee decided the caste claim of the original petitioner, by
the impugned order dated 1.8.2003. In the circumstances of the case, we
would have normally remanded the matter pertaining to the caste claim
wp2159.05.odt
of the original petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for a fresh decision,
specially when the original petitioner could not be heard on 14.7.2003,
when he was lastly called for hearing. However, since the petitioner has
expired during the pendency of the writ petition, it would not be possible
to remand the matter pertaining to the caste claim of the original
petitioner to the Scrutiny Committee for verifying the same on merits
after hearing the original petitioner.
We also find that the Scrutiny Committee has very lightly
brushed aside the extremely old documents of the pre-independence era,
of the years 1919, 1940 and 1945, by referring to a comparatively new
document of the year 1968. It is rightly stated on behalf of the petitioner
that normally the Scrutiny Committee rejects a caste claim on the ground
that the old documents do not substantiate that the claimant belongs to a
particular caste and in this case, the Scrutiny Committee has brushed
aside the old documents by referring to a comparatively new document of
the year 1968.
Normally, when the principles of natural justice are not
followed and a person is not granted an opportunity of hearing, the
matter is remanded to the authority concerned with a direction to hear
the person. However, since the petitioner has expired and the widow of
the petitioner has received the retiral benefits, that were payable to the
wp2159.05.odt
original petitioner and she is also receiving family pension, it would not
be proper to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for verification
of the caste claim of the original petitioner, who is no more. If the
petitioner nos.2 and 3 are desirous of getting their caste certificates
verified, they are entitled to do so by applying to the Scrutiny Committee.
It would not be proper to remand the matter of the original petitioner to
the Scrutiny Committee, as the original petitioner has expired, but the
petitioner nos.2 and 3 or the petitioner no.2's progeny would be entitled
to seek the verification of their caste claim. The impugned order passed by
the Scrutiny Committee in the case of the original petitioner should not be
considered by the Scrutiny Committee while verifying the caste claims of
the members of the family of the original petitioner, as his caste claim was
invalidated without hearing him.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, we dispose
of the writ petition with no order as to costs. It is needless to mention that
the respondent no.3 would not be entitled to take any adverse action
against the petitioner nos.1 to 3 so far as the grant of family pension is
concerned.
Rule accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
Wadkar
wp2159.05.odt
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct
copy of original signed judgment.
Uploaded by : S.S. Wadkar, P.S. Uploaded on : 06/10/2016
ig
