1 W.P.No.231.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.231 OF 2008 Sambhaji S/o Nagorao Udgirwad, Age 24 years, Occup. Social Service, R/o Honwadaj, Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Rural Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai. (Copy to be served on the Govt. Pleader, High Court, Bench,at Aurangabad. 2. The Advocate General, State of Maharashtra Office at High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Fort, Mumbai-32. 3. The State Election Commission Maharashtra State, Madam Kama Road, Opp. Mantralaya Mumbai-Through State Election Commissioner. 4. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee,through its Chairman/Director, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 5. The Divisional Commissioner, Divisional Commissionerate Aurangabad,Division Aurangabad. 2 W.P.No.231.08 6. The Collector Collectorate, Nanded. 7. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. 8. The Executive Magistrate, Tahsil Office, Mukhed District Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. S.C.Yeramwar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1,2,5,6 and 8. Shri S.T.Shelke Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri U.S.Malte,Advocate for respondent NO.4. Shri V.S.Panpatte,Advocate for respondent No.7. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner’s caste Certificate was forwarded to the Committee for ascertaining its validity and correctness. The petitioner led some evidence before the Committee. 3 W.P.No.231.08 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vigilance cell report was dispatched by the Committee on 2nd March, 2007, which was received by the petitioner on 6th March, 2007. The Committee had fixed the matter for further hearing on 6th March, 2007. In these circumstances, the petitioner could not file the reply to the vigilance cell report. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Committee decided the matter on 6th March, 2007. 4. Mr. Malte, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-Committee placed reliance on the relevant documents and submits that the Committee closed the matter for orders on 6th March, 2007, but it was decided by passing reasoned order on 23rd March, 2007. 5. From the record placed before us and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that appropriate opportunity was not given to the petitioner. The report of 4 W.P.No.231.08 vigilance Committee was received by the petitioner belatedly. Due to the said reason, the petitioner could not participate in the proceeding and file reply to the vigilance cell report. On this ground, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Committee. 6. The order passed by the Committee dated 23.03.2007 is quashed and the matter is remanded back. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 28th June, 2010 at 11.00 a.m.. The petitioner may file reply to the vigilance cell report on the same date (i.e. on 28th June, 2010). The Committee shall conduct the hearing of the matter in accordance with law. The Committee shall dispose of the matter finally within eight weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner, by passing a reasoned order. 7. Rule made absolute in above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK 5 W.P.No.231.08