1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.3417 Of 2007 * Rameshwar Manikrao Ghante, Age 29 years, Occupation : Service, R/o Jewali, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through its Member Secretary Aurangabad. 3) The Collector, Osmanabad. 4) The Executive Magistrate, Omerga, District Osmanabad. .. Respondents. -------- 2 Shri. A.S. Bayas, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. K.B. Choudhari, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1,3 and 4. Shri. R.P. Phatke, Counsel, for respondent No. 2. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 17th MARCH 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.) 1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the counsel for the parties, taken up for final disposal. 3) The petitioner claims to be belonging to Mahadeo Koli, a scheduled tribe. The petitioner contends that he is working as teacher. The tribe claim of the petitioner was 3 verified by the respondent No.2 - Tribe Claim Scrutiny Committee and by order dated 14-3-2007 the tribe claim of the petitioner was invalidated by the Committee. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the document at Exhibit "F" belonging to the petitioner's brother Parmeshwar Manikrao Ghante has not been referred to by the Committee. The petitioner was not accorded personal hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Scrutiny Committee has produced the original record and submitted that the petitioner was absent on the dates of hearing. 4) We have perused the original record. In the Roznama sheet we do not find any entry of dates after 31st January 2007 up to the date of order i.e. 14th March 2007. What happened on 4 31st January 2007, on which date the hearing was fixed, is not borne out from the record. We do find that the petitioner filed an application dated 29th January 2007 for adjournment of the hearing which was fixed on 31st January 2007. 5) The Committee did not refer to the document at Exhibit “F” to the petition which, according to the petitioner, is a certificate in respect of his brother mentioning his caste as Hindu (Koli Mahadeo). 6) We are of the view that the matter is required to be reheard by the Committee. The petitioner would appear before the Committee for personal hearing. The document which is not referred to by the Committee should be referred. 5 7) During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the Committee pointed out that the petitioner's school record seems to have been manipulated. This issue is not dealt with by the Committee. The Committee is entitled to look into the school record of the petitioner and decide whether the same is tampered with. 8) For the reasons stated above, we pass following order. 9) The order dated 14-3-2007 passed by the respondent No.2 – the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in File No.DD/TCSC/ABD/OSD/SER/59/2001 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the said Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 5th April 2010 at 11.00 a.m. From that date i.e. 5th April 6 2010, the Scrutiny Committee shall decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within three months on merits. We do not express any opinion on merits of the matter. 10) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.3417.07