- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3724/2009 Shri Nagesh s/o Valmik Koli, age 27 yrs., occu.nil r/o at post Murud Parunagar Tq. & Dist.Latur. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Tahsildar and Competent Authority for Issuance of Caste/Tribe Certificate, Latur Dist.Latur. 3. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division Aurangabad, through its Member Secretary, Kashmira Building, Employment Exchange Campus, Central Bus-stand Road, Aurangabad. ...Respondents... ..... Shri Avinash S. Londhe, Advocate for petitioner. Shri V.B. Ghatge, AGP for respondent nos.1 & 2. Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE: 10.08.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Hardas, J.) : - 2 - 1] Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2] This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the respondent – scrutiny committee dated 16.12.2006 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Koli Mahadev – scheduled tribe. 3] It appears from the judgment of the respondent – scrutiny committee that the petitioner was called for hearing on various dates. The petitioner in this petition has averred that he had not received a single communication from the committee in respect of the date on which the proceedings were fixed for hearing before the scrutiny committee. Shri Malte, the learned counsel for the scrutiny committee, has made available for our perusal the record and proceedings and perusal of the same does not disclose any acknowledgement of the petitioner having received any notice in respect of hearing of the proceedings. In that light of the matter, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition and remit the matter back to the scrutiny committee for decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It also appears that the petitioner could not file reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell as the petitioner was not informed about the dates on which the proceedings were fixed for hearing before the committee. 4] In that light of the matter, therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the committee for decision afresh. We direct the petitioner to attend the office of the respondent – scrutiny committee on 24.8.2009. On the said date, the petitioner shall, if he so desires, submit his reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell. The petitioner shall not be granted any adjournment for filing reply to the report of the Vigilance Cell. The respondent – scrutiny committee shall thereafter hear the - 3 - petitioner and decide the tribe verification proceedings in accordance with law within two months from 24.8.2009. 5] Rule is, thus, made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. Copy duly authenticated be provided to the parties on request. (A.V. Potdar, J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/c1080931