1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3539 OF 2009 Sau. Savita w/o Bhujangrao Pillewad, Age : 25 years, Occu. Household, R/o Harnala, Tq. Biloli, Dist. Nanded Through Power of Attorney Shri Bhujang s/o Babarao Pillewad, Age : 32 years, Occu. Service, R/o Harnala, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad, through its Dy. Director (R), Aurangabad 3. The Collector, Nanded District Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.M. Vibhute, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 3; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 11th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner impugns the order of the respondent - Scrutiny Committee dated 29.12.2008 invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled Tribe. The caste claim of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent - Scrutiny Committee by the Collector, Nanded. 3. In support of his plea as belonging to "Koli Mahadev" - Scheduled the petitioner relied upon the documents which are enlisted in the order of the Scrutiny Committee as documents no. 1 to 8. 4. The aforesaid documents were referred to the vigilance cell for inquiry and the vigilance cell placed on record the admission extract dated 10.7.1972 pertaining to the father of the petitioner which showed that the caste of the petitioner was recorded as "Koli" and not as "Koli Mahadev". The petitioner, on the other hand, had produced the admission extract dated 16.7.1970 3 wherein the caste of the father of the petitioner was recorded as "Koli Mahadev". In the light of the discrepant evidence in respect of the caste of the father of the petitioner, a re-inquiry was ordered by the vigilance cell. The vigilance cell submitted its report dated 31.7.2008. In the aforesaid report the vigilance cell had observed that in the admission extract wherein the caste of the father was recorded as "Koli Mahadev", the word "Mahadev" appeared to have been written in different ink. 5. Shri S.M. Vibhute, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid report of the re-inquiry conducted by the vigilance cell was used against the petitioner without providing a copy of the said report to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, had no opportunity to meet the adverse findings recorded by the vigilance cell in the re-inquiry. Shri R.P. Phatke, learned Counsel for the Committee was unable to place before us any acknowledgment to show that the petitioner had been served with a copy of the report of the vigilance cell after re-inquiry. In the light of that, therefore, according to us the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Committee for a decision afresh. The 4 petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 6.10.2009. Shri R.P.Phatke, learned Counsel for the respondent - Committee assures to provide copy of the report of the re-inquiry to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner to submit his reply to the re-inquiry report of the vigilance cell on 6.10.2009. The respondent Committee to hear the petitioner and thereafter decide the tribe claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, preferably within three months of 6.10.2009. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3539.09 5