Bombay High Court
Sanjay Purushottam Mundle vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 June, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, S. G. Chapalgaonkar
1 wp 13147.22+.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
979 WRIT PETITION NO.13147 OF 2022
AACHAL SANJAY MUNDLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND ANOTHER
...
AND
980 WRIT PETITION NO.13197 OF 2022
SANJAY PURUSHOTTAM MUNDLE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. C.R. Thorat
AGP for Respondents : Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar/ Mr. A.S.Shinde
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
Dated: 8 June 2023
...
ORAL ORDER :- ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
. Heard both sides.
2. The petitioners are daughter and father. The only
grievance being put forth by the learned advocate for the
petitioner/s is lack of opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner/s by the respondent Caste Scrutiny Committee.
Learned advocate points out that the request was made seeking
time to secure the record of a distant validity holder and still that
aaa/-
2 wp 13147.22+.odt
was not extended to. Petitioner/s have not been provided
sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claim. Career of the
petitioner Aachal in writ petition no.13147 of 2022 is at stake.
Both the petitioner/s are ready to go before the Scrutiny
Committee and produce all record, which they would be able to
do within three weeks' from today.
3. Petitioner Aachal in writ petition no.13147 of 2022 has
already appeared for 12th standard examination and is aspiring
for further admission and her fate would depend upon the
decision by the Scrutiny Committee.
4. Petitioner Sanjay Mundle in writ petition no.13197 of
2022 is working as Police Head Constable since last 37 years at
Aurangabad.
5. Learned AGP points out that the petitioner/s have not filed
response to the report of the Vigilance Cell also.
6. There is enough record to demonstrate that a request was
being made by the petitioner/s seeking time to fetch the record
of the validity holder. It is interesting to note that even when
admittedly the petitioner/s had not filed any response/reply to
the report of the Vigilance Cell served upon them, contrary
aaa/-
3 wp 13147.22+.odt
observations have been made by the Committee in paragraph
no.5 about having gone through the reply, which clearly
demonstrates lack of application of mind.
7. Be that as it may, the Committee ought to have borne in
mind that it was not called upon to decide some adversarial
litigation. It is a matter of caste claim to be verified by the
Scrutiny Committee according to law. There was no hanging
sword on the Committee to decide the petitioners' case within
stipulated time and innocuous request for time to produce record
was turned down. Heavens would not have fallen had sufficient
opportunity been extended to the petitioner to substantiate the
claim.
8. We allow both the writ petitions partly, quash and set aside
the impugned judgment and order of the Scrutiny Committee
and remand the matter to it for decision afresh, by extending
sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to file a reply to the
Vigilance Cell and any other document/record they intend to file.
They shall file all such reply/documents before the Scrutiny
Committee within three (3) weeks from today. The Scrutiny
Committee shall take it on record and decide the matter afresh
within four (4) weeks thereafter, on its own merits.
aaa/-
4 wp 13147.22+.odt
9. The writ petitions are disposed of.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) ( MANGESH S. PATIL, J. )
...
aaa/-
