1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1389 OF 1994 Dattatrya Shivnath Rahatal, Age 58 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Chincholi-Gurav, Taluka Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Shri Bhausaheb Kashinath Medhe, Age : 40 years, Occu. Service 3. Shri Jagannath Kashinath Medhe, Age : 35 years, Occu.Agril., 4. Sindhubai Kashinath Medhe, Age : 30 years, Occu.Household, (Petition dismissed vide order dated 8.9.2003) 5. Chandrabhagabai Kashinath Medhe, Age Major, Occu. Household, 6. The Deputy Director and Chairman of the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Maharashtra State, Nashik Adiwasi Vikas Bhawan, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 002 ..RESPONDENTS 2 Mr S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr V.H. Dighe, AGP for respondent no.1; Mr S.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent no.2; Mr R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.6. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.2.1994 passed by respondent no.6 validating tribe claim of respondent no.2 as “Mahadev Koli”. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this petition may briefly be stated thus:- Father of the petitioner had purchased land from father of respondents no.2 to 5. The respondents thereafter filed proceedings under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to the Scheduled Tribe Act as the respondents claimed to be belonging to “Mahadev Koli” - Scheduled Tribe. The application filed by the respondents came to be allowed by the Tahsildar and the petitioner was directed to restore possession of the land to the lands. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar filed appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The appeal of the petitioner came to be dismissed on 24.4.1983. The petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal 3 filed Writ Petition in this Court i.e. Writ Petition No.2252 of 1985, which came to be admitted by this Court on 29.5.1985, which was re-numbered as Writ Petition No.2770 of 1992. In the said writ petition respondent no.2 produced a caste certificate stating that he belongs to “Mahadev Koli” Scheduled Tribe. On the basis of the objection of the petitioner, the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 14.1.1994 directed the Scrutiny Committee to conduct an inquiry in respect of the tribe status of the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the respondent Scrutiny Committee validated the claim of the respondents as belonging to “Mahadev Koli” - Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has annexed to this petition at Exh.E, a document dated 22.2.1994, which is in the nature of information supplied to the learned Counsel representing the Scrutiny Committee. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid writ petition, namely Writ Petition No.2770 of 1992 is pending consideration before this Court and the possession of the petitioner stands protected. 3. The sole question that is raised in this petition before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent – Scrutiny Committee has not passed a speaking order but has passed a non- speaking and a cryptic order. Unfortunately, though Rule came to be issued in this petition, neither respondents no.2 to 5 nor the respondent no.6 Scrutiny Committee has placed on record the exact text of the order which is passed by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee. On the contrary, the petitioner has 4 annexed several documents pertaining to the caste status of the father of respondents no.2 to 5 which shows that they belong to “Koli” - tribe and not to “Koli Mahadev” - Scheduled Tribe. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid documents had been produced by him during the inquiry before the respondent – Scrutiny Committee, but as pointed out by us above, in the absence of the respondents making available for our perusal the full text of the order, it is difficult to decide as to whether the documents submitted by the petitioner have been dealt with appropriately by the respondent – Scrutiny Committee. 4. None appears on behalf of respondents no.2 to 5 when this petition is called out for hearing. We have heard Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.P. Phatke, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6. As pointed out by us above, in the absence of either the full text of the order and the record and proceedings of the respondent – Scrutiny Committee being made available for our perusal, we are inclined to allow this petition. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order validating the tribe claim of the respondent and remit the matter back to the respondent – Scrutiny Committee for a decision afresh. We direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent – Scrutiny Committee on 18th August, 2009. We also direct the respondent Scrutiny Committee to issue notices to respondents no.2 to 5 and adjudicate the tribe claim of the respondents in accordance with 5 law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. This be done within six months of 18th August, 2009. Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs. [ A.V. POTDAR, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] 6