1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.1125 Of 2008 * Kishore Rammayan Venkeshwar Age 55 years, Occupation : Service, Residing at Venkateshnagar, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary to the Government, Social Welfare Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Hemant Surve, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.D. Rakh, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Counsel, for respondent No. 2. -------- 2 CORAM:NARESH H PATIL & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE: 23rd NOVEMBER, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule, made returnable forthwith. 3) The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mannervarlu" a Scheduled Tribe. The caste certificate was verified by the Scrutiny Committee and it was invalidated by an order dated 31-10-2007. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not personally heard on merits which has caused prejudice to the petitioner and the same amounts to violation of mandatory rules. 3 5) The learned counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee, Shri. R.P. Phatke, has produced original record before us. We have perused the same. From the record we find that two notices were issued to the petitioner on 3-10-2007. One was in respect of remarks of the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell Report and another was in respect of personal hearing which was fixed on 23-10-2007. The petitioner filed his reply on 22-10-2007 in respect of letter issued by the Committee having outward No.5112. The record shows that, the outward number of the notice calling upon the petitioner for appearing for personal hearing appears to be different i.e. 5905. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner could not reply to the said notice for personal hearing. The leaned counsel Shri. Phatke submitted that, the petitioner had filed reply to the Vigilance Cell report on 22-10-2007. In all 4 probability he must have been aware that next date of personal hearing was on 23-10-2007. 6) In fairness to the petitioner we find that, an opportunity of personal hearing is required to be given to the petitioner in the light of the original record placed before us, and the facts of the case and the matter is required to be remanded to the Scrutiny Committee. 7) The order dated 31-10-2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the said Committee. 8) The Committee shall hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the basis of available record. The 5 petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 14th December 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Committee shall decide the matter within two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner i.e. 14th December 2010 on the basis of the available record and merits. 9) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.1125.2008