Ashok Rambhau Mohod vs The Collector, Amravati And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8865 Bom

Judgment                           1                 929-W.P.No.1726.2022.odt




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

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 1726 OF 2022

      Ashok Rambhau Mohod,
      Age 52 years, Occ. - Agriculturist,
      R/o. Asara, Tq. Bhatkuli,
      Dist. Amravati.                                .... PETITIONER

                             // VERSUS //

1)    The Collector, Amravati,
      Tq. And Dist. Amravati.

2)    District Caste Certificate
      Scrutiny Committee, Amravati,
      Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

3)    Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati,
      Tq. & Dist. Amravati.

                                             .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
     Mr. N.A. Gawande, Advocate for the petitioner.
     Mrs. N.P. Mehta, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
______________________________________________________________


                  CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                          VALMIKI SA MENEZES, JJ.

DATED : 06.09.2022

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 2 929-W.P.No.1726.2022.odt

2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the

petitioner, we have gone through the copies of the notices alleged to be

sent and served upon the petitioner. We have also gone through the

reply-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2. The reply admits

that out of these three notices, two notices were issued to wrong

persons. However, the reply also shows that there was one notice

issued to the petitioner but, the reply does not show that there was

available any proof of receipt of the notice by the petitioner. That apart,

notice dated 09.01.2020 issued to the petitioner does not fix any date

of hearing or attendance to be made by the petitioner. It is thus clear

that the order which is impugned here has been passed without giving

any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such an order cannot

stand the scrutiny of law.

3. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned

order dated 20.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

4. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 for

fresh consideration and decision, in accordance with law.

5. The Scrutiny Committee shall decide the matter in

accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within Judgment 3 929-W.P.No.1726.2022.odt

six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the

Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny

Committee on 14.09.2022.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)

Kirtak

Digitally Signed By:KIRTAK BHIMRAO JANARDHAN Signing Date:06.09.2022 19:14