1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4393 OF 2006 Ganesh s/o Jagannath Tambave, Age 22 years, occup. Education, r/of Gaikwad Galli, Dharur, Taluka Dharur, District Beed. Petitioner versus 01. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 02. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 03. Shri U.L. Chavan, Police Inspector, Police Vigilance Cell Officer, Aurangabad. Respondents (deleted vide order dtd.13.10.10.) ------- Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Respondent No.3 deleted as per order dated 13.10.10. 2 Coram: Naresh H. Patil and Shrihari P. Davare,JJ. Judgment reserved on : 01.12.2010. Judgment pronounced on : 07.12.2010. Judgment (Per: Shrihari P. Davare, J.) 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 02. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed; "(A) To issue writ of certiorari or any other writ or directions in the like nature and the order passed by Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad i.e. respondent No.2 dtd. 18.04.2006 in file No.04/7 may kindly be quashed and set aside. 3 (B) To issue writ of mandamus or any other directions in the like nature, the petitioner may kindly be declared as belonging to Caste "Lingader-Lingdhar" which one and the same and appears at Sr. 34 in list of Scheduled Caste as notified under Constitutional Provision and his caste certificate may kindly be held to be valid. (C) To issue writ of mandamus and the Respondent No.2 Caste Scrutiny Committee may kindly be directed to return the original documents forfeited by them to the petitioner." 03. The Petitioner is a student of Pune University pursuing his studies of post graduation in Physics. He claims to be belonging to cast Lingader which is at serial No.34 of list of Schedule Caste. Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra represented through the Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Mumbai, whereas Respondent No.2 is the Caste Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 4 04. The facts and events leading to the present petition are that the Executive Magistrate, Dharur, issued caste certificate to the petitioner on 26.9.1994 mentioning therein that he belongs to "Lingdhar caste" notified at serial No.34 in the list of Schedule Castes. The said caste certificate is produced at Exhibit A to the present petition (page 12). The petitioner referred the said caste certificate to Respondent No.2-Committee for scrutiny and verification in the year 1999 and also produced other documents therewith. However, Respondent No.1 returned back the said caste certificate to the Petitioner on 25.6.2005 with observations that since the petitioner was not pursuing education in any professional course, and therefore, scrutiny of the said caste certificate was needed. Hence, the petitioner filed writ petition No.7399 of 2005 before this Court and this Court directed Respondent No.2 to decide caste claim of the petitioner within four months from 21.11.2005, by the order dated 26.10.2005, and 5 petitioner was directed to remain present before the Scrutiny Committee on 21.11.2005. Copy of the said order is annexed at Exhibit B (page 13). 05. Accordingly, as per said directions of this court, petitioner remained present before the Scrutiny Committee. Petitioner was asked to produce some more documents which were accordingly produced by him. Thereafter show cause notice dated 6.3.2006 was issued to petitioner and he was asked to remain present before the Committee on 21.3.2006 and submit his explanation/say as to why his caste claim should not be rejected on the basis of vigilance cell report. Petitioner, accordingly, remained present on that day before the Committee and also filed reply to the said show cause Notice as well as produced some documents therewith. However, Respondent No.2 passed an order on 21.3.2006, which was communicated to petitioner on 18.4.2006/8.6.2006 and thereby invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner and the copy of the 6 said order is produced at Exhibit C (page 15). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order passed by Respondent No.2-Committee, the petitioner has impugned the same in the present petition. 06. We have perused the contents of the present petition, its annexures, and perused the impugned order and also the record and file maintained by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee in respect of the petitioner, as well as considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, anxiously. 07. It is the matter of record that Respondent No.2-Committee issued a notice to the petitioner on 6.3.2006 calling upon him to show cause why his social status claim should not be rejected on the basis of vigilance cell report and on the infirmities mentioned therein and the petitioner, accordingly, filed reply thereto on 21.3.2006 and also produced certain documents therewith to comply 7 with the alleged infirmities and the copy of the said reply dated 21.3.2006 is produced at Exhibit D (page 23). Moreover, it is also the matter of record that by letter dated 6/7.3.2006 Respondent No.2-Committee called upon the petitioner for hearing on 21.3.2006 and the petitioner attended the said hearing, accordingly. 08. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, although in his reply dated 21.3.2006 to the show cause Notice dated 6.3.2006, he had categorically stated that he had not received the vigilance cell report, Respondent No.2-Committee proceeded with hearing on 21.3.2006 without serving copy of the vigilance cell report to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to put up his say/explanation to the said vigilance cell report. 09. On perusal of the original file of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee, it is seen that 8 show cause notice was issued by Respondent No.2 to the petitioner on 6.3.2006 and the Committee also issued letter dated 6/7.3.2006 to the petitioner, calling upon him to remain present for hearing on 21.3.2006. It is also seen that the petitioner filed reply dated 21.3.2006 to the said show cause notice dated 6.3.2006 and there is specific foot note at the bottom of the said reply dated 21.3.2006 that "Petitioner has not received vigilance cell report, so far. " 10. Moreover, there is no record in the said file to show that copy of the vigilance cell report was served upon the petitioner. Hence, it is amply clear that the copy of the vigilance cell report was not served upon the petitioner and Respondent No.2-Committee proceeded with hearing of the matter on 21.3.2006 without serving copy of the vigilance cell report on the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity to address on the said vigilance cell report and further proceeded to pass the 9 impugned order, which suffers from the aforesaid infirmities and hence, the matter deserves to be remitted back to Respondent No.2-Committee with directions to serve copy of the vigilance cell report to the petitioner and to give him reasonable opportunity to furnish his explanation thereto and also grant hearing to the petitioner afresh, after quashing the impugned order dated 21.3.2006 (Exhibit C). 11. In the result, the impugned order dated 21.3.2006 (Exhibit C) stands quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to Respondent No.2- Committee with directions to serve a copy of the vigilance cell report upon the petitioner and grant him reasonable time to give reply/explanation thereto and further to give hearing to the petitioner afresh and to pass a reasoned order and to communicate the same to the petitioner. Petitioner is directed to remain present before Respondent no.2-Scrutiny Committee on 20.12.2010 at 10 11.00 a.m. and Respondent No.2-Committee is directed to pass order in respect of social status claim of the petitioner in compliance with aforesaid directions within the period of four months, thereafter, and present Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. Rule made absolute in above terms. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) pnd/wp4393.06