1 wp1227.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1227 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10212 OF 2007 Smt. Sulochana Ganpatrao Walkale, Age : 40 years, Occ : Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, R/o Khatumpur, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for Respondent/State. Shri. R.P. Phatake, Advocate for respondent no.2. Shri S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent no.3. ..... (CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 13th July, 2011. ORAL ORDER :- 1. The petitioner's grievance in the present Petition is, that the Scrutiny Committee has rejected her tribe claim of being "Mahadeo Koli" without affording her a personal hearing. The Committee has noted in its order that the petitioner was directed to be present before the Committee on 21st December, 2006 and a letter to that effect had been dispatched on 7th December, 2006. The Committee has further noted that the petitioner appeared along with her father for a personal hearing on 21st December, 2006 before the Committee. 2 wp1227.07 2. Shri Phatke, the learned Advocate appearing for the Scrutiny Committee has placed before us the record of the Scrutiny Committee. He fairly submits that the petitioner was not heard by the Scrutiny Committee and in fact is shown absent on the date when the Scrutiny Committee heard the matter i.e. on 21st December, 2006. He, therefore, concedes that the Scrutiny Committee has incorrectly recorded the petitioner's presence in its order. 3. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Apart from this, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner points out that no home enquiry was conducted, and therefore, the order of the Committee is vitiated. It appears that this contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner is correct, as the record does not reflect that a proper home enquiry was conducted as required under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes, (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 and Rules framed thereunder. 4. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Scrutiny Committee to decide it afresh. The Scrutiny Committee will afford a personal hearing to the petitioner after furnishing her the Vigilance Cell 3 wp1227.07 report on conducting the home enquiry. 5. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, the Civil Application is also disposed of. (M.T. JOSHI, J.) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) ga s/wp1227.07