1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2919 of 2004 [Pradeep Vinayakrao Wankhade Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.R. Choudhary, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Doifode, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Tiwari, Adv., holding for Mr. S.M. Puranik, Adv., for respondent no.2. ------ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 24th August, 2009. 1. Heard learned Adv. Mr. V.R. Chaudhari for the petitioner, learned AGP Mr. S.S. Doifode for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and learned Adv. Mr. Tiwari holding for Adv. Mr. S.M. Puranik for respondent no.2. 2. Learned Adv. Mr. Tiwari informs that Mr. Puranik is out of station and he, in fact, wanted adjournment. However, on same ground, the matter was earlier adjourned on 17th August, 2009, and posted today. We have, therefore, rejected that request. We have also heard learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3. 2 3. Adv. Shri Chaudhari has made a small grievance, stating that though the petitioner disclosed affinity correctly, the same has been disbelieved only on the ground that petitioner had not stated so when his statement was recorded by Vigilance Cell, or then something else was stated at that time. He invited our attention to paragraph 13 of the order of Scrutiny Committee to substantiate his stand. 4. In this light, we have heard respective arguments. Perusal of Paragraph 13 of the order of Scrutiny Committee shows that when petitioner appeared before Scrutiny Committee, he was put some questions and he stated that the Jatganga is a Committee of five members and Mukhiya is its chief. He further stated that there is no Bhagat in the community and when he was asked about Fadaki , he stated that at the time of marriage bridegroom puts Fadaki on bride. He also stated that marriage is officiated by those know know rituals. Ka-Thakur and Ma-Thakur are the divisions found in Scheduled Tribe. They worship their family idol Munjadeo daily at home. They put statue of said God in their houses. 5. The Committee has remarked that this information was given on the strength of bookish knowledge, because at the time of home enquiry, the candidate was not able to give any such 3 information. It is further observed that at the time of home enquiry, petitioner stated that he used to draw and sell milk of cow, but in the hearing-sheet [before Committee], he mentioned that the community does not draw milk from cow. The Scrutiny Committee has, therefore, inferred that petitioner was giving information on the basis of bookish knowledge. 6. Adv. Mr. Chaudhari has rightly pointed out that the Vigilance Cell did not ask for these details from petitioner and there is nothing on record to show that petitioner did not give these details to Vigilance Cell, though the same were asked for. He further points out that the statement about community drawing and selling milk is erroneous, because petitioner did not make any such statement to Vigilance Cell. 7. We find that the Scrutiny Committee has not correctly appreciated the records before it and part of grievance made by Adv. Mr. Chaudhari appears to be proper. However, as Adv. Mr. Puranik is not present, the records of Scrutiny Committee are not available for perusal. Hence we grant the petitioner one opportunity to appear before Scrutiny Committee to point out the affinity, or otherwise. For that purpose, the order of Scrutiny Committee dated 28th June, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is directed to appear before Scrutiny 4 Committee on 7th September, 2009 and to abide by its further directions in the matter. The Scrutiny Committee shall attempt to adjudicate petitioner s caste claim as early as possible and in any case by 31st March, 2010. Rule accordingly. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|