1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1892 OF 2010 Balaji S/o Vishvamber Tompe, Age : 28 years, Occ : service, At/P Chalburga, tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. Mahatma Basweshwar Mahavidyalaya, Latur, Through its Principal. 4. Mahatma Basweshar Sanstha, Latur, Through its President. 5. The Taluka Executive Magistrate, Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.C. Yeramwar holding for Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A. G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 5. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ..... (CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 7th June, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. MHATRE, J.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Scrutiny Committee has passed the impugned order without affording a hearing to the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner received a notice dated 16th January, 2007 on 23rd January, 2007, indicating that he should appear before the Committee and show cause in respect of the Vigilance Report, within two weeks from the receipt of the notice. However, it appears that the Scrutiny Committee completed the hearing on 31st January, 2007, in the absence of the petitioner and decided the petitioner's caste claim by its order dated 17th March, 2007. The Committee has invalidated the petitioner's claim that he belongs to the Koli Mahadeo scheduled tribe. 3. It appears that in an earlier round of litigation, the petitioner had approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 5166/2006 as his tribe claim had been invalidated by the Committee. The Petition was disposed of by directing the Committee to decide the petitioner's claim by 4th January, 2007. The petitioner was also directed to be present before the Committee on 4th September, 2006. The Respondents i.e. respondent no.3 and 4 were directed not to take any adverse action against the petitioner till 4th January, 2007. 4. It appears that the petitioner is no longer in service. Although this Court had directed the Committee to dispose of the petitioner's claim by 4th January, 2007, from the record it is apparent that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 16th January, 2007, which was received on 23rd January, 2007, to show cause in respect of the Vigilance Report. There is no reason stated in the order of the Scrutiny Committee as to why it was in a tearing hurry to complete 3 the hearing by 31st January, 2007 when, it had, in any case, overstepped the time limit prescribed by this Court. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner's contention that he received a notice only on 23rd January, 2007 directing him to show cause within a 15 days, is incorrect. 5. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The Committee is directed to scrutinize the tribe claim of the petitioner once again within three months from today. We hope that the Committee will not err in this third attempt in deciding the petitioner's tribe claim. The petitioner shall be present before the Committee on 20th June, 2011 at 11 a.m. He shall be afforded a personal hearing by the Committee. Rule made absolute accordingly. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) ga s/wp1892.10