(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 390 OF 2006 Smt. Kashibai Namdeovrao Apte, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. At & Post : Bodhan Nagar, Jalkot Road, Udgir, District : Latur. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, Through its Chairman/Director, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Executive Magistrate, Udgir, District : Latur. 4. The Collector, Collectorate, Latur. 5. The Zilla Parishad, Latur, Through its Chief Executive Officer. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate, for respondent no.2. Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 27th May 2005, passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claim, Aurangabad, vide which the claim of the petitioner, of belonging to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe, has been invalidated. 3. Admittedly, there were two reports of the Vigilance Cell, out of which one has not been, admittedly, supplied to the petitioner. 4. According to Mr. U.S. Malte, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 Committee, in so far as second report is concerned, (3) the petitioner has not file any reply to the same and, therefore, she cannot claim that any prejudice is caused due to non-supply of the first report. 5. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that though time was sought, so as to file reply to the said report, the time was denied by the Committee. 6. However, it appears to be undisputed position, that one of the reports of the Vigilance Cell has not been supplied to the petitioner and has also not been considered by the respondent Committee. 7. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition partly. 8. Hence, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 27th May 2005, passed by the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribal Claim, Aurangabad, thereby invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent Committee for deciding the tribe claim of the petitioner afresh. (ii) The petitioner shall report before the Committee on 9th November 2009, on which date the petitioner shall be supplied with the report of the Vigilance Cell, which is not already supplied to her. (iii) The Committee shall thereafter decide the tribe claim of the (4) petitioner, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to meet the contents in both the reports. (iv) The Committee shall decide the tribe claim of the petitioner, on its own merits, within a period of four months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the Committee. (v) Needless to state, that till the decision of the tribe claim of the petitioner, by the Committee, the interim protection which was granted in favour of the petitioner, shall continue. 9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp390