Ladda 1 wp-3569-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3569 of 2011. Sardar Atiya Shabbir Ahmed ...Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & ors ...Respondents. ...... Mr Ramesh Dube Patil and Ashish Giri i/by Aneeta Vasani, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs M. P. Thakur, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. CORAM: D.D. SINHA AND A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 8TH JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mrs Thakur, the learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. Writ petition is directed against the order dated 18th December, 2010 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nashik, whereby the caste claim of the petitioner as Ladda 2 wp-3569-11.doc belonging to Kokani (Schedule Tribe) came to be invalidated. The Counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned order has been challenged mainly on the ground that same is violative of principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Committee before passing the impugned order. It is submitted that though it is mentioned in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order that on 29th July, 2010 the petitioner and her husband appeared before the Caste Scrutiny Committee and were given reasonable opportunity of hearing. However, this observation in the impugned order is not correct and also not based on the record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that Shri M.K.More, Research Officer, Schedule Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Pune, has filed an affidavit dated 27th June, 2011, in the present case, and in paragraph No. 10, it is stated that on 29th July, 2010 one Mr Akhil Gaffar Shaikh, who claimed to be the husband of the petitioner, appeared before the Committee which is reflected in Roznama of the proceedings conducted by Respondent No.2. It is submitted that the statement made on affidavit by Mr M.K. More, Research Officer and the observations Ladda 3 wp-3569-11.doc made by the Committee in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order are inconsistent with each other and show that the petitioner was not present on 29th July, 2010 before the Committee and, therefore, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. It is contended that even otherwise the petitioner does not have a good case on merits and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner is just and proper, and is also sustainable in law. 4. Having considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel as well as after perusing the observations made by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in paragraph No.5 of the impugned order and paragraph No.10 of the affidavit filed by the Research Officer, it is evident that there is an apparent inconsistency about the presence of the petitioner before the Committee on 29th July, 2010. In paragraph No.5 of the impugned order the Committee has observed that on 29th July, 2010, the applicant along with her husband appeared before the Ladda 4 wp-3569-11.doc Committee and were fully heard. Whereas in paragraph No.10 of the affidavit, it is specifically stated by the Research Officer on oath that on 29th July, 2010 one Shri Akhil Gaffar Shaikh who claimed himself to be the husband of the petitioner only appeared before the Committee on 29th July, 2010. Affidavit is completely silent about the presence of the petitioner before the Committee on 29th July, 2010. It is in these circumstances, it appears that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of hearing by the Committee before passing the impugned order and, therefore, in our view, same being violative of principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained in law. 5. For the reasons stated herein above, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18th December, 2010 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, matter is remanded back to the Caste Scrutiny Committee which is directed to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the caste claim of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard, on its own merit, within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner undertakes to appear personally before the Caste Ladda 5 wp-3569-11.doc Scrutiny Committee on 18th July, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be given further notice in this regard. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (D.D.SINHA,J) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)