W.P.No.6410 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6410 OF 2008 Dnyandev Ambadas Ghante .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr A.S.Bayas, Advocate for petitioner Mr K.B.Choudhari, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 3 Mr R.P.Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.2 Mr Amit Mukhedkar, Advocate holding for Mr L.C.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.4 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE AND M.T. JOSHI DATE : 29th April 2011 PER COURT 1. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has erred in invalidating his tribe claim. The petitioner claims that he belongs to the Koli Mahadeo – Scheduled Tribe. According to him the home enquiry, which was supposed to be conducted by the Vigilance Cell has not been conducted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 sub rule (4) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes, Denotified (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance and Verification) of caste certificate Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). W.P.No.6410 of 2008 2 2. We have perused a copy of the report of the home enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Cell and in our opinion the grievance of the petitioner is well founded. 3. Rule 12 (5) of the Act indicates that the Vigilance Officer appointed should visit the local area of the place of residence of the candidate and the original place from which a candidate hails or usually resides. The Vigilance Officer is expected to personally verify and collect all facts about the social status claimed by the applicant or his parents, as the case may be. The Vigilance Cell or the Officer deputed is expected to question the parents or guardian of the applicant for the purposes of verification of the tribe claim of the applicant. On completion of the enquiry the Vigilance Cell is required to submit its report to the Scrutiny Committee which in turn must consider the report of the Vigilance Cell besides other factors and decide whether to validate the certificate. 4. In the present case, we find that the Vigilance Cell report does not indicate that the Vigilance Officer has posed any question to the parents of the applicant. It is now well-settled that it is necessary for the Vigilance Officer to undertake this exercise. He has not only to pose questions to the parents of the applicant, but must record their response to those questions in order to ascertain whether the applicant succeeds in showing affinity to a particular tribe. In our opinion, therefore, the impugned order W.P.No.6410 of 2008 3 passed by the Scrutiny Committee will have to be set aside as it is based on the report of the Vigilance Cell, which is in breach of the provisions of Rule 12 of the Act. 4. Accordingly, the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee dated 31.5.2008 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Committee. 5. The vigilance enquiry shall be conducted afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner shall appear before the Scrutiny Committee on 11th May 2011. The Scrutiny Committee will then pass appropriate orders after considering the vigilance enquiry and other relevant factors. 6. The Scrutiny Committee will pass final orders on the validation of the petitioner’s tribe claim within six months from today. Petition disposed of accordingly. ( M.T. JOSHI, J. ) ( SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. ) (vvr/6410.10wp)