1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2796 OF 2007 Rajendra s/o Tulshiram Boyane, Age-32 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Quarter No.B-8, (Old) Vishnupuri Campus, SRTMU, Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, (Through its Secretary), Tribe Dev. Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, (Through its Member-Secretary), 3) The Tahsildar and Tq. Executive Magistrate, Udgir, 4) The Collector, Latur, 5) Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University, (Through its Registrar), Dnyanteerth, Vishnupuri, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.U.R. Awate Advocate h/f. Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Shri. U.S. Malte Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri. B.S. Shinde Advocate h/f. Shri. V.P. Latange Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. 2. The Petitioner's caste claim as belonging to "Koli Malhar" caste was verified by the Committee. The vigilance cell report is said to have been served on the Petitioner. But the counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said report was served on the Petitioner only on 31st 3 January, 2007, on which day the arguments were advanced and hearing was concluded. 3. The original record was produced before us by Shri Malte, learned counsel appearing for the Committee. We perused the same. We do not find any evidence showing service of vigilance cell report on the Petitioner. The counsel for the Committee submits that in the communication made by the Petitioner addressed to the Committee dated 31st January, 2007, there is mention regarding communication dated 12th January 2007 which could impliedly be accepted as evidence of service of vigilance cell report on the Petitioner by communication dated 12th January, 2007. 4. In fairness to the Petitioner, we are not inclined to accept the explanation given by the learned counsel for the Committee. There was no difficulty for the Committee to maintain the record straight of serving vigilance cell report on the Petitioner and granting fifteen days time 4 for filing reply, if any. Shri. Malte, the learned counsel appearing for the Committee refers to Roznama of the proceedings in support of his contention. In the facts of the case, we find that appropriate opportunity is required to be given to the Petitioner in fairness and in the interest of justice. There is no other option than to remand the matter back to the Committee. We find that the Petition is pending since 2007 in this Court, therefore, the issue is required to be decided at the earliest. 5. Impugned order dated 29th March, 2007 passed by the Committee, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee. The Petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 28th June, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Petitioner may file reply to the vigilance cell report, which is already received by the Petitioner. The Committee may dispose of the matter finally within EIGHT WEEKS from the said date of appearance of the Petitioner before it, on the available evidence 5 and the reply filed by the Petitioner, if any. It is made clear that in case the Petitioner fails to appear before the Committee on 28th June, 2010, the Committee is entitled to decide the matter on the available evidence, by passing a reasoned order. We express no opinion on the merits of the matter. 6. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp2796.07