1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5907 OF 2009 Sayyed Yakub s/o Sayyed Hamdu, Age-45 years, Occu:Agri., R/o-Kerhala, Tq-Sillod, District-Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) S.C.,V.J.N.T., O.B.C., & S.B.C. Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.1., Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, 3) The District Collector, Aurangabad, 4) The Village Development Officer/ Gramsevak, Grampanchayat, Kerhala, Tq-Sillod, Dist-Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.S. Thombre Advocate for Petitioner. Smt.R.K. Laddha A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.B.L. Sagar-Killarikar Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 24TH NOVEMBER, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to "Tamboli" caste, - O.B.C. category. The Petitioner is a member of Gram Panchayat. The Petitioner was elected as member of Gram Panchayat in the year 2005. Under the provisions of law, it is incumbent on the authorities to forward the proposal of the Petitioner for verification of his caste claim. Accordingly the proposal was forwarded. 3. The original record is brought by the learned counsel Shri Sagar appearing for the Respondent No.2 Committee and based on the same, the counsel submits that in January, 2006 notice was issued to the Petitioner. Thereafter a show cause notice along with the relevant documents was forwarded to the Petitioner in the same year i.e. 2006 and thereafter the matter was pending for number of years. Ultimately, in the 3 year 2006, the caste claim of the Petitioner was invalidated. 4. From the record, the reason for keeping the matter pending for the period of more than three years, could not be ascertained. The learned counsel Shri Sagar submits that from the year 2008, number of times the counsel for the Petitioner appearing before the Committee sought adjournments and thereafter the matter was decided in the year 2009. 5. In substance, what we gather from the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and from the record, is that the Committee ought to have decided the matter of the Petitioner being the elected representative, at the earliest. The delay in disposing of such matters frustrates the very object of reservation policy and the law relating to getting the caste claims verified by the Committee. 6. Unfortunately, the record does not reflect that the vigilance cell report was served on the Petitioner. The Petitioner was represented by the 4 lawyer in the year 2008 and therefore it was possible for the Petitioner to bring this fact to the notice of the Committee, get the copy of the vigilance cell report from the Committee; so that the matter could have been decided strictly in accordance with the settled principles. But nothing of this sort has happened. The sole beneficiary of these lapses would be the Petitioner. In this scenario, we are left with no other alternative than to remand the matter back to the Committee. 7. The order of the Committee, for the reasons stated above, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee. The Petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 30th November, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. The Committee shall serve the copy of the vigilance cell report to the Petitioner by giving him 15 days time for filing reply. After 15 days, the Committee shall hear the Petitioner and by going through the records, pass final orders within one month thereafter, on its own merits and in accordance with the law. 5 8. This gives us an opportunity to direct the learned Collector, Aurangabad to call for the report from various Panchayats to ascertain as to whether the caste verification claim of elected members of village Panchayat in the last concluded elections to the Gram Panchayat are still pending with the Committee, so that the object and purpose of the law is achieved. 9. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. . The Registrar of this Court is directed to forward the copy of this order to the Collector, Aurangabad. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL,J.] asb/NOV09/wp5907.09