1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.2883 OF 2007 * Madhav s/o Nagnath Madiboyane, Age 31 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o Moti Nagar, "Girija Niwas", Behind Bholenath Building, Latur, District Latur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Through its Deputy Director and Member Secretary, Aurangabad. 3) The Collector,Latur. 4) The Tahsildar, Renapur, District Latur. 5) The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Beed. ... Respondents. -------- 2 Shri. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1,3 and 4. Shri. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri. A.B. Dhongde, Advocate for respondent No.5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 13th APRIL 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil) : 1) Heard. 2) Rule, rule made returnable forthwith and by consent taken up for final hearing. 3) The petitioner claims to be belonging to "Koli Mahadeo", a Scheduled Tribe. His tribe claim was verified by Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, 3 Aurangabad. By an order dated 28-3-2006, the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that copy of Vigilance Cell report was not furnished to the petitioner. He was not given proper opportunity to participate in the enquiry. The communication was sent on a wrong address. The petitioner has good case on merits, according to the learned counsel. 5) The learned counsel appearing for the Scrutiny Committee submits that after considering the material produced by the petitioner and after giving due opportunity the matter has been decided by the Committee. 4 6) We find that the vigilance cell report is not served on the petitioner which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. It is true that the petitioner should have taken good efforts to appear before the Committee and participate in the hearing. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the matter requires remand to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh hearing. 7) The order dated 28-3-2006 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the said Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 28th April 2010 at 11.00 a.m. The Committee shall serve copy of vigilance cell report on the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to file reply, if any, to the vigilance cell report. Thereafter the 5 Committee after hearing the petitioner shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible on its own merits. 8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.2883.07