Rajesh Sambhaji Akulwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 8366 Bom

                                        1                      W.P.No.12772/17

                                    UNREPORTED

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
                                  AT BOMBAY

                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                           WRIT PETITION NO.12772 OF 2017


          Rajesh Sambhaji Akulwad,
          Age 25 years, Occ.Service,
          R/o Vitthal Nagar, Nanded,
          Tq. and Dist.Nanded.                     ... Petitioner.


                           Versus

          1. The State of Maharashtra
          through its Secretary
          Tribal Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

          2. The Scheduled Tribe
          Certificate Scrutiny
          Committee, Aurangabad,
          through its Deputy Director(R),


          3. The Collector,
          Kolhapur, Tq. and Dist.
          Kolhapur.                                ... Respondents.

                                            ...

          Mr.P.V.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
          Mr.S.W.Munde, A.G.P. for the State.
                                   ...

                                 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                         SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,JJ.

Date : 02.11.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With

the consent of the learned counsel for the

parties the petition is taken up for final

hearing.

2. Learned A.G.P. waives service of Rule

for the Respondents.

3. Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel submits

that validation proceedings in respect of his

tribe claim as Mannervarlu - Scheduled Tribe is

pending with the Committee since the year 2013.

The same is not yet decided. The Respondent No.3

employer has issued notice to submit the validity

within 21 days, else the services would be

terminated.

4. We have heard learned A.G.P. also.

5. To get the proceedings decided within

the stipulated period is not in the hands of a

litigant.

6. Considering above, we pass the

following order :

a) The impugned notice as such is quashed

and set aside.

b) The Respondent No.2 Committee shall

decide the validation proceedings in respect of

the tribe claim of the petitioner within a period

of eight (8) months. The petitioner shall

cooperate in expeditious disposal of the

proceedings. The petitioner shall appear before

the Respondent No.2 Committee on 16.11.2017.

c) Till the validation proceedings are

decided, the Respondent No.3 shall not take

adverse action against the petitioner only on the

ground of pendency of the validation proceedings.

The Respondent No.3 can take further course of

action depending upon the judgment that would be

delivered by the Committee in the validation

proceedings.

          d)               Rule accordingly made absolute in above







          terms.        No costs.



                           Sd/-                   Sd/-

          (SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.)     (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)



          asp/office/wp12772.17