Satish Pandurang Hedaoo vs State Of Maha. Through Secretary ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10296 Bom

259-WP-3149-13(J)                                                                                   1/4




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

                             WRIT PETITION NO.3149 of 2013.

          Satish Pandurang Hedaoo,
          Aged 38 years,
          residing at Anwarpura, Achalpur Taluka.
          District-Amravati.                 ..                        ....... PETITIONER

                              ...V E R S U S...

1.        State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary,
          Tribal Development Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

2.        Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee,
          Amravati Division, Amravati, through its
          Member Secretary having its Office at
          Irwin Chowk, Amravati, District Amravati.

3.        Zilla Parishad through its Chief Executive Officer,
          having its office at Amravati,
          District Amravati.                                         ....... RESPONDENTS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashwin Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri D.P.Thakre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

               CORAM :- A.S.CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

DATE :- OCTOBER 06, 2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order passed by

the Scrutiny Committee on 17.04.2013 thereby invalidating the tribe claim of 259-WP-3149-13(J) 2/4

the petitioner of belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner in

support of his claim relied upon various old documents of the year 1929,

1930, 1943, 1949 and 1950 with entries 'Halbi'. During the Vigilance Cell

enquiry three documents were noted by the Vigilance Cell of the year 1913-

14, 1919 and 1946 with entries 'Koshti'. These documents were supplied to

the petitioner alongwith the report of the Vigilance Cell dated 02.02.2013.

The petitioner replied to the aforesaid notice that was received by the

Scrutiny Committee on 18.02.2013. In that reply the petitioner denied the

relationship with the persons against whom the entry 'Koshti' was mentioned.

However, while considering the tribe claim the Scrutiny Committee in

paragraph 7 (d) of the impugned order has referred to said three documents

with 'Koshti' entry and has concluded that the petitioner has failed to prove

that he belonged to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record, we find that it is the specific case of the petitioner that

the aforesaid entries are of persons who are not related to him. It is also seen

that Vigilance Cell has recorded the statement of one Shri Ganesh Onkarrao

Sormare wherein he has stated that Shubhadra Devrao Sadoba was not

related to the petitioner. This specific stand has been taken by the petitioner

in the reply. It appears from the documents placed before the Scrutiny 259-WP-3149-13(J) 3/4

Committee that it is only in these three documents that the entry of 'Koshti' is

seen. In all other documents on which the petitioner has relied, the entries

shown are 'Halbi'. It is also seen that the material collected by the Vigilance

Cell in the form of pre-independance documents has not been considered by

the Scrutiny Committee. In these facts, we are of the view that the Scrutiny

Committee ought to be directed to re-consider the petitioner's claim of

belonging to 'Halbi' Scheduled Tribe. The material already on record is

required to be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the Vigilance

Cell enquiry has been conducted and the petitioner has also filed his reply to

the same.

3. Hence for aforesaid reasons and with a view to facilitate re-

consideration of the petitioner's tribe claim, the order dated 17.04.2013

passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The petitioner shall appear

before the Scrutiny Committee on 19.10.2022 to facilitate re-consideration of

his tribe claim. Since the material on record is only required to be re-

considered, the entire proceedings be completed within a period of six

months from that date. The petitioner is presently employed with the

respondent no.3-Zilla Parishad, Amravati and he is entitled to continue in

service subject to final adjudication of the proceedings by the Scrutiny

Committee. The Scrutiny Committee shall consider entire material on record 259-WP-3149-13(J) 4/4

and after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner decide the

tribe claim on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

Pending civil application is also disposed of.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.)

Andurkar..

Digitally Signed byJAYANT S ANDURKAR Personal Assistant Signing Date:

07.10.2022 14:57