Maroti Chinanna Almod vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 260 Bom

                                      1                              wp 371.18

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2018

          Maroti S/o Chinanna Almod,
          Age : 32 years, Occu. : Service,
          R/o Bothi, Tq. Umri,
          Dist: Nanded.                               ..    Petitioner

                   Versus

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

 2.       The Schedule Tribe Certificate
          Verification Committee, Aurangabad,
          Through its Deputy Director (R),
          Aurangabad.

 3.       The Collector, Ratnagiri,
          Dist. Ratnagiri

 4.       The Tahsildar Khed,
          Dist. Ratnagiri.                            ..    Respondents

 Shri Sunil M. Vibhute, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Shri G. O. Wattamwar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

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




::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2018                 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2018 01:51:47 :::
                                         2                                   wp 371.18

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

 .        Rule.     Rule   made   returnable   forthwith.     The   learned 
 Assistant   Government   Pleader   accepts   notice   of   rule   for   all 
 respondents.     Taken   up   for   final   hearing   with   the   consent   of 
 parties.


 2.       The   tribe   claim   of   the   petitioner   as   belonging   to 
 Mannervarlu   (Scheduled   Tribe)   is   pending   with   the   Scrutiny 
 Committee.  According to the petitioner, the employer has issued 
 notice   to   the   petitioner   to   submit   validity,   else   adverse   action 
 would be taken against the petitioner.


 3.       It is stated that, earlier Committee invalidated proceeding 
 on the ground that there is spell mistake in the name of tribe 
 recorded   in   the   tribe   certificate   issued   by   the   Sub   Divisional 
 Officer.  This Court in Writ Petition No. 8488 of 2017 under order 
 dated 04th  July, 2017 had directed the Committee to verify and 
 scrutinize the claims irrespective of such spelling error.  The said 
 order was directed to be observed in all other matters where the 
 Committee   had   passed   similar   order.     It   is   submitted   by   the 
 learned   counsel   for   the   petitioner   that,   on   20 th  July,   2017   the 
 petitioner had brought to the notice of the Committee the order 
 of this Court dated 04th  July, 2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 
 8488 of 2017.




::: Uploaded on - 12/01/2018                        ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2018 01:51:47 :::
                                             3                                    wp 371.18

 4.       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 
 proceeding.


 5.       Considering   the   aforesaid   conspectus,   we   pass   following 
 order.


                                       O R D E R

A. The 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.

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 is quashed and set aside.

D. The respondent /employer shall not take any action against the petitioner only on the ground that validation proceeding is pending.

                                        4                                   wp 371.18

 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