1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1438 OF 2009 Ravindra s/o. Abhimanyu Lonkhaskar ( Kamble ) Age 25 years, Occ. Education r/o. Lonkhas, Post, Pargaon Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad. At present Ambika Nagar, Palwan Road, Beed, Dist. Beed. .. petitioners Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2] The Tahsildar, Georai Dist. Beed. 3] The Secretary, Maharashtra State Education Research and Training Institute, Pune. 4] The Principal, New Education Society, New Mahadwar Road, Petala, Jr. College of Education, Shivaji Peth, Kolhapur (D.Ed. College) 5] The Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee Schedule Tribe, Aurangabad .. Respondent. --- Mr. V.M. Humbe, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent NO.5 Mr. R.P. Phatke, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER,2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent No.5 Committee , thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Mahadeo Koli” Scheduled Tribe. 2] In pursuance to the order passed by this court, the respondent NO.5 Committee has produced on record the files pertaining to the claim of the petitioner so also his cousin – Vikas s/o. Subhash Kamble. 3] After perusal of the file, it is clear that the claim of said Vikas Kamble has been validated by the committee. It is also seen that while validating the claim of Vikas, the record of the present petitioner's father, namely, Abhimanyu has also been perused by the Committee. It could further be seen that the Vigilance Cell has also made a detailed enquiry at the native place of the petitioner's father and after considering the said report, the claim of said Vikas has been validated. 4] However, from the perusal of the file of Ravindara, it appears that the present petitioner has not given explanation to the report of the Vigilance Cell. It is the contention of the petitioner that reply could not be filed since 3 though the petitioner was present before the Committee, he was not given any further dates and only after the receipt of the impugned order, he came to know about the validation of the claim of the petitioner's first cousin. We, therefore, find that the case of the petitioner requires to be considered afresh. We may note that both Abhimanyu i.e. Father of Rajendra and Suresh i.e. Father of Vikas, are real brothers. 5] In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (B). The respondent No.5 Committee is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh, after giving him an opportunity of hearing to give his explanation to the report of the Vigilance Cell and also furnishing fresh material in support of the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner to report to the respondent NO.5 committee on 29th September, 2009. As such, the requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. The respondent No.5 Committee shall decide the claim of the petitioner within 4 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before it, in accordance with law. Since the petitioner has already prosecuted the his studies in the D.Ed. Course, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to declare the result of the petitioner. In the circumstances, there shall be no orders as to costs. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 4