1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 3195 OF 2009. Shri. Sahadeo S/o Manik Mantre, age 31 years, Occu. Nil, R/o Post, Pahadi, Tq. Dharur, Dist. Beed .. PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Executive Magistrate, Dharur & Competent Authority for issuance of Caste /tribe Certificate, Dharur, Dist. Beed. 3) The Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division,Aurangabad Through its Member Secretary, Kashmira Building, Employment Exchange Campus, Central Bus-stand road, Aurangabad. . RESPONDENTS. ... Shri A.S. Londhe, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri U.S. Malte, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10th MARCH, 2010. 2 PER COURT: (S.S. Shinde,J.) 1. Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission. This Writ Petition takes exception to the decision 26-07-2006 passed by the respondent No. 3– Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, thereby the caste certificate of the petitioner as belonging to ‘Mahadeo Koli’ Scheduled Tribe granted by the Executive Magistrate, Dharur vide bearing No. 95/Misc/Ws/ dated 03-07-1995 is canceled and confiscated by the respondent- Committee. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, he is selected for the Conductor (Jr.) from Scheduled Tribe reserved category, and accordingly his caste / tribe certificate is referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for its verification. The main grievance of the 3 petitioner is that, the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is without giving him opportunity to put-forth his case. The respondent-Committee has not given personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned decision. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner would be contained if the matter is remitted back to the Committee for fresh inquiry in accordance with law by setting aside the impugned decision of the respondent No. 3-Committee. Though this Court has issued notice to the respondents as back as on 26th June, 2009, the contesting respondent No. 3-Committee has not filed reply. The counsel appearing for the respondent-Committee invited our attention to the fact that, the respondent-Committee had issued communication to the petitioner for attending personal hearing on various dates, however, the petitioner remained absent and consequently there was no option but to pass the impugned decision. 3. We have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length. We are of the opinion 4 that, the matter needs to be remitted back to the respondent-Committee for fresh hearing. It is not in dispute that, though notices in this petition are issued as back as on 26th June, 2009, the respondent-Committee has not filed reply to the petition. Therefore, averments made in the petition remained un-controverted. Though the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Committee submitted that, the communication was sent to the petitioner to attend the personal hearing, the same is denied by the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the respondent- Committee is unable to show from the record the proof of written communication to the petitioner communicating the date of personal hearings. Therefore, for the reasons stated here-in-above, the impugned decision of the respondent-Committee is quashed and set aside, instead the matter is remitted back to the respondent-Committee for fresh hearing. The Caste claim of the petitioner referred to its original file. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent-Committee on 22-03-2010. It is needless to mention that, the respondent- 5 Committee will hear the petitioner and then passed take appropriate decision in the light of documents already submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. The respondent-Committee is also directed to take decision afresh within three months from the date of receipt of this order. Rule made absolute in above terms. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] [ A.M. KHANWILKAR, J ] SDM* WP3195.09/110310.