1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH WRIT PETITION NO. 217 OF 2008 Shivshankar s/o. Dinkar Hugge, age 36 years, occ. service, R/o. West Barshi Road, Behind Old Gas Godown, Tambri Vibhag, taluka and district Osmanabad. - - - Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Tahsildar, Osmanabad. 3. The Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Bus Stand Road, Aurangabad. - - - - Respondents Shri V. M. Humbe, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri Pravin Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.3. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. Dated : 22nd September 2009 ORAL ORDER : [ Per B. R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27-1-2003 passed by respondent No.3 Scrutiny Committee thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner. 3. It was the contention of the petitioner that the claim of his real brother namely; Pramod has been validated. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner's brother's claim was validated, we had called files of both petitioner as well as Pramod. On perusal of the file of the petitioner, it appears that when vigilance inquiry was being conducted, father of petitioner namely; Dinkar had intimated the Scrutiny Committee that the petitioner was working in a private Company at Pune, and therefore, proceedings should be dropped. It, therefore, appears that the claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated since the petitioner's father had requested for closing the proceedings. 4. However, it appears that subsequently, the petitioner's brother's claim has been validated. In the said proceedings it appears that petitioner's father namely; Dinkar has made a statement that no one bearing Hugge surname or the blood relation has been found to be not belonging to Scheduled Tribe. 3 5. It is the submission of Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 Scrutiny Committee that the claim of Pramod came to be validated since there was suppression of the invalidation of the claim of the petitioner. However, prima facie, we find that there was no vigilance inquiry regarding the petitioner and the claim came to be invalidated since the father of the petitioner himself requested the Committee to close the file. In any event, respondent No.3 Scrutiny Committee has itself decided to reconsider the case of Pramod. In that view of the matter, we find that in order to avoid conflicting orders and further noticing that the claim of the petitioner came to be decided since the father of the petitioner has requested for closing the proceedings, it would be in the interest of justice that the case of the petitioner would be considered along with his brother Pramod and other relatives, if the Committee so desires. 6. The impugned order dated 27-1-2003 passed by the respondent No.3 the Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.3, the Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad for considering the claim of the petitioner along with 4 claim of his brother Pramod or any other relatives, if so desired by the Committee. 7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J. ) ( B. R. GAVAI, J. ) pnk/wp21708