1 WP No.2854 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.2854 of 2011 * Sanjay s/o Datta @ Dattatraya ) Ratnaparkhe ) Age 35 years, ) Occupation : Service, ) R/o Flat No.B-1, ) Parvati Apartment, Padampura, ) Aurangabad. ) .. Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra ) Through its Secretary, ) Social Welfare Department, ) Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. ) ) 2) The Scheduled Castes, VJNT, ) Other Backwad Classes and ) Special Backwsard Category ) Divisional Caste Certificate ) Scrutiny Committee No.2, ) Division Aurangabad at ) Latur. ) ) 3) The Competent Authority & ) Taluka Executive Magistrate, ) Nanded. ) ) 4) The Marathwada Shikshan ) Prasarak Mandal, ) Through its Secretary, ) C/o Deogiri College of Arts, ) Commerce & Science, ) Aurangabad. ) )Respondents 5) Principal, ) Deogiri College of Arts, ) Commerce & Science, ) Aurangabad. ) 2 WP No.2854 of 2011 Sshri. Monish Nilwant, Advocate, holding for Shri. S.B. Talekar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE 14th DECEMBER 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.): 1) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) Rule, made returnable forthwith. 3) The petitioner’s caste claim was being verified by the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The Committee heard the matter finally on 13-8-2009 and the matter was reserved for orders on the said date. The Committee thereafter decided the matter on 9th March 2011 i.e. after near about one and half years. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by Division Bench (Coram: B.R. Gavai and M.T. Joshi, JJ.) dated 8th 3 WP No.2854 of 2011 September 2011 in Writ Petition Nos.1264 and 2776 of 2011 in support of his submission that long delay in the date of hearing and the date on which the judgment is pronounced is a sufficient ground for quashing and setting aside the order. 5) We have called the original record. We find that the Committee ought to have delivered the judgment within a reasonable time frame after it concluded hearing and reserved the matter for judgment. Early disposal in such cases is warranted because it requires to go through the record, the facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced by the parties. 6) In the facts of the case, we, therefore, find that the fresh opportunity is required to be given so that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner on that count. 7) The impugned order dated 9-3-2011 passed by respondent No.2 – Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 22nd December 2011 at 11.00 a.m. The 4 WP No.2854 of 2011 petitioner is entitled to put up arguments before the Committee on the available record. The Committee shall dispose of the case on its own merit on the basis of the record within two months from 22-12-2011. All issues are kept open. 8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Authenticated copy be given to the counsel for the parties. Sd/- Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl