(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5231 OF 1997 Khan Abdul Gani s/o. Abdul Rashid, Aged : 35 years, Occupation : Govt. service, R/o. House No. 9-4-623, Mandai, Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Maharashtra State, Nasik, Through its Member Secretary, Adivasi Vikas Bhavan, Agra Road, Nasik. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, Advocate, holding for Mrs. Smita Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ........................ (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 5th September 1997, passed by the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee, thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner, of belonging to "Tadvi", Scheduled Tribe. 2. Mr. Pradeep Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee has totally erred in invalidating the claim of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the service record of his grandfather, who was working as Police in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, the school leaving certificate of his father, which is a pre- constitutional document, and the documents pertaining to the petitioner, were showing the caste (tribe) as "Tadvi". He submits that, inasmuch as, seven original documents have not been considered by the Committee. He further submits that the two close relatives of the petitioner from the father's side have been held validly belonging to "Tadvi" and there is no justification for denying same benefit to the petitioner. (3) 3. A categorical statement has been made in the petition, that the inquiry by the Vigilance Cell was a farce. The Vigilance Cell did not visit the place of the petitioner and make the enquiry, as contemplated. It is further submitted that unnecessarily reliance is placed on the caste certificate of one Mr. Riyaz Mohd., who, though related to the petitioner, was only residing with the petitioner's family. 4. Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee, submits that the Committee has rightly passed the order, inasmuch as, original service book of the grandfather of the petitioner was not produced by the petitioner before the Committee. He further submits that the duplicate service book of the petitioner's grandfather, that he was serving with Nizam Government, was also not available and, as such, no error could be found. 5. We find that the Committee has not considered the matter in its correct perspective. We have personally perused the original service book of the petitioner's grandfather. The said service book is in Urdu. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Deshmukh, has brought to our notice, the English translation thereof. The same shows the caste of the petitioner's grandfather to be "Tadvi". We also find that there are certain pre-constitutional documents pertaining to the (4) petitioner's father. There is also additional evidence to the effect that the petitioner's relatives have been declared as belonging to "Tadvi" tribe. It is further to be noted that the allegation of the petitioner, that the vigilance inquiry was not conducted properly, has also gone unchallenged. 6. In that view of the matter, it is in the interest of justice, that the tribe claim of the petitioner is once again verified and decided by the Committee, in the light of the documents mentioned herein above, and also, any other material that the petitioner desires to produce before the Committee. 7. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 5th September 1997, passed by the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee, invalidating tribe claim of the petitioner, is quashed and set aside, and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 / Scrutiny Committee with a direction to decide the caste (tribe) claim of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law, and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to produce additional material before the Committee, which shall also be taken into consideration by the Committee. Needless to state, that the (5) vigilance inquiry shall be properly conducted in accordance with law (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 26th July 2010, and the Committee shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the petitioner. (iv) The interim relief, which was granted by this Court, shall continue to operate till the decision of the Committee, and in the event, an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner is passed, four weeks from the date of receipt of communication thereof by the petitioner. 8. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp5231