wp10045.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10045 OF 2010 Manisha W/o Satish Nidbane @ Manisha D/o Shivraj Belkatte, Age-32 years, Occu:Agril. & Household, R/o-Kauthala, Tq-Deoni, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Scheduled Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Deputy Director (R), Aurangabad. 3) The Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 4) The Additional Collector, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur. 5) The Tahsildar, Deoni, Tq-Deoni, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. wp10045.10 2 ... Shri.P.V. Jadhavar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.M. Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5. Shri.R.P. Phatake, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Shri.Gastagar Advocate h/f. Shri. C.D. Biradar Advocate for Intervenor - Shri. Abhijit Raosaheb Hude. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 24TH JANUARY, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to "Koli Mahadeo", Scheduled Tribe. Her caste certificate was forwarded for verification to the Respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee. By impugned communication dated 13th October 2010, wp10045.10 3 the Respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee informed the Collector, Latur that as the subject caste certificate submitted by the Petitioner, was not issued from the office of Tahsildar, Udgir, the caste verification proposal was returned back to the Collector, Latur. 3. Shri. Jadhavar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that political opponent of the Petitioner is instrumental in impressing upon the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel submits that without noticing the Petitioner, the Caste Scrutiny Committee had returned back the caste verification proposal of the Petitioner to the Collector, Latur. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor submits that the Petitioner had obtained the caste certificate fraudulently. 5. Without entering into the merits of the wp10045.10 4 Petitioner's caste claim, we observe that the Caste Scrutiny Committee was bound to issue notice to the Petitioner and after hearing the Petitioner, ought to have passed suitable orders. In absence of notice to the Petitioner, we find that basic principles of natural justice are flouted. On this ground alone, we find that the matter requires to be remanded back to the Respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee. 6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order/communication dated 13th October, 2010 issued by the Respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee, addressed to the Collector, Latur is quashed and set aside. We direct the Respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee, to hear the Petitioner and thereafter deal with the caste verification claim of the Petitioner, in accordance with law. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the caste claim of the Petitioner. All issues are kept open. The wp10045.10 5 Petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No.2 - Caste Scrutiny Committee on 14th February, 2011 at 11.00 a.m. 7. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp10045.10