Snehal Sahebrao Rautwar vs State Common Entrance Test Cell ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4162 Bom

                                                                914-wp-4414-2022 judg.odt



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO.4414 OF 2022

Snehal Sahebrao Rautwar
Age : 19 yrs, Occu : Education,
R/o, Wai, Tq. Mudkhed, Dist. Nanded

Presently residing at
Survey No.45-1-1 Plot No.A5, 301
Mirchandani Bilagio, Undri Pisoli,
Tq. Haveli, Dist. Pune                                      ...Petitioner

         Versus

1.       State Common Entrance Test Cell,
         Maharashtra, Mumbai,
         8th Floor, New Excelsior,
         A.K. Nayak Marg, Fort, Mumbai,
         Through its Commissioner &
         Competent Authority.

2.       Scheduled Tribe Certificate
         Scrutiny Committee,
         Kinwat (Headquarter at Aurangabad)
         through its Member Secretary.                      ...Respondents

                                  ...

Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent no.2-State. Mr. S.G Karlekar, Panel Counsel for respondent no.1.

...

CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

DATED : 20th APRIL, 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER R.D. DHANUKA, J.) :-

1. Rule. Learned AGP Shri Yawalkar waives service for

respondent no.2 and learned counsel Shri Karlekar waives service for

914-wp-4414-2022 judg.odt

respondent no.1.

2. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 07.03.2022

passed by the respondent no.2 - committee invalidating the tribe

claim of the petitioner being 'Mannervarlu' Scheduled Tribe on

various grounds.

4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited

our attention to the letter dated 15.02.2022 addressed by his client in

respect of the show cause notice issued to deal with the observations

made by the Vigilance Committee. He submits that the explanation

given by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent

no.2 - committee in the impugned order at all. He also invited our

attention to the grounds raised by the petitioner in paragraph no. IX

of the petition and would submit that, the explanation is not sought

from the petitioner in respect of the file of Hanmantrao and father of

the petitioner Sahebrao.

5. The learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.2 states that

this is a clear case of fabrication and manipulation of record by the

petitioner and thus, no interference is warranted with the impugned

order passed by the respondent no.2 - committee.

6. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the

scrutiny committee has not considered the explanation rendered by

914-wp-4414-2022 judg.odt

the petitioner by letter dated 15.02.2022 and has invalidated the tribe

claim of the petitioner.

7. In our view, the petitioner has thus made out a case for

quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by respondent

no.2 - committee for deciding the matter afresh after considering the

reply dated 15.02.2022 filed by the petitioner giving explanation to

the observations made by the Vigilance Committee afresh and in

accordance with law.

8. In view of the above, writ petition is allowed in terms of

prayer clause (A). The tribe claim of the petitioner is restored before

the respondent no.2 - committee for deciding the matter afresh in

accordance with law and after considering the reply annexed at page

42 of the petition expeditiously and not later than four months from

the date of communication of this order. The respondent no.2 -

committee shall grant personal hearing to the petitioner. The

petitioner shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment before the

respondent no.2 - committee.

9. If the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, the

respondent no.2 - committee shall issue tribe validity certificate in

favour of the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of

such order. If the tribe claim of the petitioner is rejected, the

petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.

914-wp-4414-2022 judg.odt

10. Writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. Rule

is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

11. The petitioner is directed to remain present before the

respondent no.2 - committee on 22.04.2022 at 11.00 am. Learned

AGP to communicate this order to respondent no.2 for information

and compliance.

12. The petitioner would be at liberty to take inspection of

the record and proceedings forming part of the record before the

respondent no.2 - committee after giving 48 hours notice to the

learned AGP. If the petitioner seeks photo copy of any of the

documents, same shall be brought to the notice of the learned AGP.

The learned AGP to supply photo copies of such documents to the

petitioners on payment of photo copying charges, if any, within three

days from the date of such application.

13. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

  (S.G. MEHARE. J.)                            (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)




Mujaheed//