1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1257 OF 2007 Ashok S/o Mahipati Waykhinde, Aged 50 years,Occup.Social Work at present Councilor of Municipal Council,Shrirampur, R/o Ward No.3. Jijamata Chowk, Shrirampur,District Ahmadnagar. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralya, Mumbai-32. 2. The District Collector, Ahmednagar. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrirampur Division,Shrirampur. 4. Tahsildar, Shrirampur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar. 5. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik,Through its Deputy Director. 6. The Municipal Council, Shrirampur. Tq.Shrirampur, District. Ahmednagar. Through its Chief Officer. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. D.S.Bagul,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P.Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER :NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner states that he is Councilor of Shrirampur Municipal Council. The petitioner claimed that he belongs to “Mahadeo Koli”. His caste claim was referred to the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee (Hereinafter referred to “Committee” for short). The Committee invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner. 3. Mr. Bagul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter-alia raised issue in respect of non-service of Vigilance Cell Report on the petitioner, which is mandatory. So also, proper opportunity of hearing was not given. 3 4. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have filed affidavit-in reply. In the reply, it is stated that Vigilance Cell Report was shown to the son of the petitioner namely Sudhir S/o Ashok Waykhinde, at the time of hearing, on 15.02.2007. 5. From the record placed before us, we find that the son of the petitioner filed an application on 15.02.2007 stating therein that he does not want to lead any evidence in support of the claim. 6. We have perused the impugned order, documents placed on record, and submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. We find that the matter is required to be remanded back to the Committee for hearing with direction to give an proper opportunity to the petitioner. We pass following order- Order I] The matter is remanded back to the Committee. 4 II] The impugned order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the respondent No.5- Committee stands quash and set aside. III] The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 2nd August, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. IV] The copy of the Vigilance Cell Report be provided to the petitioner. V] Two weeks time shall be granted to the petitioner for filing reply to the Vigilance Cell Report. VI] The petitioner is entitled to lead other documentary evidence, if any, in support of his claim. VII] Thereafter, the Committee shall post the matter for hearing and dispose of the caste claim of the petitioner expeditiously on or before 30th September,2010. VIII] The petitioner shall co-operate with the Committee, in case the petitioner fails to co-operate the Committee in effective hearing of the petition, the committee is at liberty to proceed and determine the caste claim of the petitioner on the available material placed before it and pass reasoned order. IX] The Committee shall also call for the file of the son of the 5 petitioner Sudhir S/o Ashok Waykhinde, while considering the case of the petitioner. 7. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the case of the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK