Ravindra Sakharam Gaikwad vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1276 Bom

47-WP-5665-16                                                                                 1/3


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO.5665 OF 2016
                                              

Ravindra Sakharam Gaikwad
Aged 36 years, Occ. Service, 
residing at NiralCity, 
D-503, Kalyan (W), Dist. Thane                                  ... Petitioner. 

-vs- 

1.  State of Maharashtra,
     Thr. Its Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt.
     Mantralya, Mumbai-32.    

2.  Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny
     Committee, Nagpur Thr. Its Member
     Secretary having its office at Nagpur, 
     Dist. Nagpur.

3.  Executive Magistrate,
     Nagpur City, Dist. Nagpur. 

4.  Commissioner of Police,
     Mumbai City, having its office 
     near Crawford Market, Mumbai 400 001. 

5.  Additional Commissioner of Police,
    (Central Region), having its office 
     at Bavala Compound Byculla,  
     Mumbai 400 008.                                            ... Respondents. 


Shri G. G. Mishra, Advocate for petitioner. 
Shri H. R. Dhumale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1,2,4 and 5. 

                                               CORAM  :  B. R. GAVAI &
                                                            A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.  

DATE : March 29, 2017

Oral Judgment (Per B. R. Gavai, J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent

47-WP-5665-16 2/3

of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by the

order of respondent No.2 dated 31/08/2016 thereby rejecting the claim

of the petitioner belonging to caste 'Thakur' (Scheduled Tribes).

3. The petition deserves to be allowed on short ground that the order

impugned is the violation of the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes,

Scheduled Tribes, Denotified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes,

Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Categories (Regulation of

Issuance and Verification of ) Caste Certificate Act, 2001.

4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the enquiry report

is adverse to the petitioner. However the impugned order has been

passed without supplying the copy of said vigilance cell report which is

adverse to the petitioner.

5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set

aside. The respondent-Authority is directed to supply the copy of

vigilance cell report to the petitioner. After supplying the copy of that

report, the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to meet the

report of the Vigilance Cell and thereafter the order should be passed

47-WP-5665-16 3/3

after giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his say.

6. The respondent-Committee is directed to complete the process

within six months from today. Needless to state that till the decision is

taken by the Scrutiny Committee, the services of the petitioner shall be

protected and in the event if the order of the Scrutiny Committee is

adverse, same shall be given effect after four weeks from its

communication to the petitioner.

                                                     JUDGE                                 JUDGE
 




Asmita