1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4995/2007 Salim s/o Nabab Shah Fakir ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. J. Mirza, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. T. D. Khade, Advocate for respondent No. 5. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA & C. L. PANGARKAR, JJ. DATED : 10 th July, 2008 1. This is a writ petition wherein the petitioner has basically challenged the action of respondent No. 2-Caste Scrutiny Committee, that resulted into rejection of his application for Caste Certificate. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing appeal under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, De- notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste 2 Certificate Act, 2000 (for short, Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001). 3. The mandate of Section 5(2) of the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 is that hearing should be given to the parties. There is no dispute here that by passing the impugned order dated 24.05.2007, the application itself was disposed of on the ground of delay, without giving any opportunity and hearing to the petitioner, which resulted into dismissal of the appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents basically submitted that there is no provision under the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 to condone the delay by invoking the provisions of the Limitation Act as sought to be done in the present case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, resisted the same. 5. Without going into this controversy and keeping all points open and as admittedly, the petitioner was not heard before passing the impugned order, therefore, 3 considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Act 23 of 2001 apart from principles of natural justice, we are of the view that the concerned Authority-respondent No. 2 should have given full opportunity to the petitioner. 5. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.05.2007 is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2-Appellate Authority should decide the application, by giving full opportunity to both the parties preferably within a period of eight weeks. The parties to appear before respondent No. 2 on 21.07.2008. This Court, on 02.11.2007 granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c-ii), which has been in force since then. In view of above, the said interim protection shall continue till decision of the appeal and two weeks thereafter. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE kahale