Shivaji Nagnath Itlawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 257 Bom

                                     1                                  wp 374.18

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 374 OF 2018

          Shivaji S/o nagnath Itlawar,
          Age : 26 Years, Occu. : Service,
          R/o Kundalwadi, Tq. Biloli,
          Dist. Nanded.                                  ..    Petitioner

                   Versus

 1.       The State of Maharashtra,
          Through Secretary to Tribal
          Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai.

 2.       The Scheduled Tribe Certificates
          Verification Committee, Aurangabad
          Through its Deputy Director (R),
          Aurangabad.

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

 Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Shri S. G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for All Respondents.

                           CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
                                      ARUN M. DHAVALE, JJ.
                               DATE : 10TH JANUARY, 2018.

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

 .        Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     The   learned 
 Additional   Government   Pleader   accepts   notice   of   rule   for   all 




::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2018                    ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2018 02:15:18 :::
                                             2                                    wp 374.18

 respondents.     Taken   up   for   final   hearing   with   the   consent   of 
 parties.


 2.       Validation proceeding  in respect of the tribe claim of the 
 petitioner   as   belonging   to   Mannervarlu   (Scheduled   Tribe)   is 
 pending   with   the   respondent   No.   2/Scrutiny   Committee   since 
 2013.  According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, same is 
 not   yet   decided   and   the   employer   has   issued   notice   to   the 
 petitioner   directing   the   petitioner   to   submit   the   validity 
 certificate,   else   adverse   action   would   be   taken   against   the 
 petitioner.


 3.       It   is   not   in   the   hands   of   a   litigant   to   get   the   validation 
 proceeding   decided   within   a   stipulated   period.     Of   course,   the 
 petitioner   has   to   co-operate   in   expeditious   disposal   of   the 
 validation proceeding.


 4.       Considering the aforesaid conspectus of the matter, we pass 
 following order.
                                       O R D E R

A. The respondent No. 2/Committee shall decide the validation proceeding in respect of tribe claim of the petitioner expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine (09) months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

                                         3                                   wp 374.18

 B.       The   petitioner   shall   co-operate   in   expeditious   disposal   of 
 said   proceeding.     The   petitioner   shall   appear   before   the 
 Committee on 30.01.2018.


 C.       The   impugned   notice   issued   by   the   employer/respondent 
 No. 3 is quashed and set aside.


 D.       The  respondent  No. 3/employer  shall  not  take any  action 

against the petitioner only on the ground that validation proceeding is pending.

E. Of course, the employer is at liberty to take further course of action depending upon the judgment that would be delivered by the Committee in validation proceeding.

F. Rule accordingly is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

          Sd/-                              Sd/-
 [ARUN M. DHAVALE, J.]           [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]


 bsb/Jan. 17