1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4956 OF 2009 Anurag s/o Vitthalrao Aitwar, Age 20 years, Occu.Education, R/o At Post Dundra, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded through Power of Attorney Holder Shri Vitthal s/o Shankarrao Aitwar, Age 47 years, Occu.Agril., R/o As above .. PETITIONER VERSUS The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Through its Dy.Director (R), Aurangabad .. RESPONDENT Shri S.M.Vibhute, Advocate for petitioner Shri U.S.Malte, Advocate for respondent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 20th August 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties these petitions are heard finally at the stage of admission. 2 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes an exception to the order of the Scrutiny Committee dated 29.6.2009 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli – Scheduled Tribe. 3. The caste certificate of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli – Scheduled Tribe came to be referred by the Head Master, Vidya Mandir High School and Junior College, Koradi, District Nagpur by communication dated 25.1.2008. The petitioner in support of his claim submitted several documents which are enlisted in the order of the scrutiny committee from Serial No.1 to 14. The respondent – scrutiny committee for reasons stated in the impugned order invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to Mahadev Koli – Scheduled Tribe. 4. The principal contention which is urged before us in this petition by Shri Vibhute, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that though the report of the vigilance cell was received by the committee on 5.11.2008, a copy thereof was not served on the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner was deprived of an opportunity of submitting his reply. The respondent – scrutiny committee has relied upon the report of the vigilance cell to invalidate the tribe claim of the petitioner. We had accordingly 3 issued notice to the respondents and had directed the respondent to produce the record and proceedings of the committee. Shri Malte, learned Counsel for the respondent-scrutiny committee very fairly states upon perusal of the record and proceedings that there is no endorsement on the record to indicate that a copy of the report of the vigilance cell was served on the petitioner. In the light of that, therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition. Since we are inclined to allow this petition and remand the matter back to the committee, we refrain from expressing any opinion as far as merits of the petition are concerned. 5. Accordingly, this petition succeeds. The impugned order of the committee is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the committee. Shri Malte, learned Counsel for the respondent-committee has tendered a copy of the report of the vigilance cell to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. We, accordingly direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent- scrutiny committee on 7th September 2009 on which date the petitioner shall submit his reply to the report of the vigilance cell. The respondent-scrutiny committee may thereafter fix the matter for hearing and pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from 7th September 2009. 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/4956.09wp) 5