1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4940 OF 2008 Sandeep S/o Limbajirao Anigunte, Age : 25 Years, Occu. : Nil, R/o Ganesh Nagar, Aurad Shahajani, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. .. .. Petitioner Versus Schedule Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through Its Vice Chairman, Kasmira Sadan, Station Road, Aurangabad. .. .. Respondents Shri S. M. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Patil, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : A. P. DESHPANDE, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH MARCH, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [Per A. P. DESHPANDE, J. ] : 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with consent of parties. 2 02. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Mahadev Koli (Schedule Tribe). As the petitioner was intending to contest the election of Panchayat Sammittee from a seat reserved for the Scheduled Tribe category, he had submitted the papers to the Collector and the Collector in turn forwarded the same to the Scrutiny Committee. As a matter of fact, the petitioner did not contest the election. The Scrutiny Committed rejected the tribe claim of the present petitioner, which order is challenged by filing present petition. 03. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Kulkarni, the impugned order is wholly unsustainable as the same is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In his submission reasonable and fair opportunity of hearing was denied to the petitioner in as much as, by a communication dated 02nd March, 2007, the petitioner was called upon to file his objection to the vigilance cell report and simultaneously a telegram was also sent on 02nd March, 2007 intimating the petitioner that the matter is kept for hearing on 06th March, 2007 at 10.00 a.m. and hence the petitioner was asked to remain present. 3 04. According to the petitioner, in the intervening period he had shifted to some other place, hence the notice of personal hearing dated 02nd March, 2007 was redirected to the changed address, which the petitioner received on 20.03.2007 i. e. much after the date of hearing. In the first place, it is submitted that telegraphic notice of final hearing is dated 02.03.2007 and the hearing was fixed on 06th March, 2007, whereas the notice was received on 20th March, 2007. It is also pointed out that the procedure adopted by the committee itself is in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as on one hand by notice dated 02nd March, 2007, the petitioner was called upon to file objection to the vigilance report within 15 days, whereas the date of hearing was fixed prior to the date by which the petitioner could have filed his objection. The learned counsel for the Scrutiny Committee does not dispute the fact that both the notices dated 02.03.2007 were simultaneously issued on same date fixing personal hearing on 06th March, whereas granting 15 days time to the petitioner to file the objections to the vigilance report. It is an admitted position that thereafter the petitioner was never informed of the date of hearing. 05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4 petitioner will remain present before the Scrutiny Committee and no further notice be issued by the Committee to the petitioner. We have no iota of doubt that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. In the peculiar facts of the present case, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh hearing and decision on merit in accordance with law. Hence the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 06.03.2007 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall attend the office of the Scrutiny Committee on 31st March, 2010. Further notice from the Scrutiny Committee stands dispensed with. The Scrutiny Committee shall permit the petitioner to file objections/reply to the vigilance report within two weeks from the date of his appearance before the Committee and thereafter the Scrutiny Committee shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter on merit. Rule is made absolute in above terms. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [A. P. DESHPANDE, J.] bsb/Mar.10