1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1537 OF 1998. Shrimant S/o Eknath Jaybhay, Age 46 years, Occ.Agriculturist R/o Khandala, Tq. and Dist. Beed. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. Vilas S/o Rajaram Badge, Age 43 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Shivajinagar, Beed. 2. Tahsildar, Tq. Beed. Dist.Beed. 3. District Collector, Beed, District Beed. 4. The Scrutiny Committee for Caste Verification, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. 5. Zilla Parishad, Beed, through its Chief Executive Officer. 6. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... Mr.L.V.Sangit, advocate instructed by Mr.V.J.Dixit, Sr.advocate for the petitioner. Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.H.K.Mundhe, advocate for the Respondent No.5. 2 CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 09.07.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. Heard Mr.Sangit, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Respondent No.1 though served is absent. 2. The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 24.10.1997, passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, thereby validating the caste claim of the Respondent No.1. 3. Initially, W.P.No.1016/1997, was filed by the present petitioner for relief that the Respondent No.l should be restrained by functioning as a councillor. It was contended that the Respondent belongs to Kunbi caste and he has contested the election of the other backward class category on the basis of the Caste Certificate. The Writ Petition is disposed of in 3 terms of the draft order dated 31.3.1997. The said order is reproduced as under : "Heard respective counsels. By consent of counsels and parties who are present in Court, we direct that the caste claim of the respondent No.1 on the basis of caste certificate dated 4.6.1976 issued by the Tahsildar, Beed be scrutinised by caste verification under the control of Director of Social Welfare Maharashtra State, Pune within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of the Court. We further direct that committee should hear both the parties and receive such evidence as may be tendered by them. Thereafter, committee shall furnish its findings to this Court. We direct that the respondent No.1 will not exercise his right as an elected councillor of Zilla Parishad, Beed until receipt of committee's report and further order by this Court." 4 4. As per the said order, the Scrutiny Committee was duty bound to give hearing to the petitioner, so also an opportunity to put forth all the relevant documents. 5. The Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 24.10.1997, has validated the caste of the petitioner as belonging to Kunbi and other backward class. While validating the same it appears that no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Even the petitioner had filed an application on 3.9.1997, before the said Committee to allow him to give an opportunity of being heard. 6. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the directions of this Court in W.P.No. 1016/1997 has not been followed. In fact, they have been violated by not giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. In light of the above, as the impugned judgment is not in conformity with the directions given by this Court, we set aside the 5 said judgment and relegate the parties to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding the caste claim of the Respondent No.1 on its own merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Respondent No.1. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (A) by further directions that the Respondent No.4 shall decide the caste claim of the Respondent No.1 afresh by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Respondent No.1. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp153798