1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P. No.4131 of 2007 (Dilip s/o. Rameshwar Sonkusale .vs. State & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Mrs. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : 03.04.2008. Heard Mr. P.U.Sonkusare, Adv. for the Petitioner and Mr.P.B.Patil, Adv. for the Respondent No.2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dt. 12.10.1999 passed by the Respondent No.2/Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificates Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur whereby the caste claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated. Counsel for the petitioner states that the procedure adopted by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is completely inconsistent with the principles of natural justice since the petitioner was never served with any notice of hearing nor copy of Police Vigilance Inquiry report was at any point of time served on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in law. In order to have a true and correct picture of the situation, we direct Mr. P.B.Patil, Adv. for the Respondent No.1/Caste Scrutiny Committee to obtain necessary 2 instructions and file affidavit in this regard. Mr. P.B.Patil, Adv. has contended that the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner are not correct. The petitioner was given opportunity of hearing, however, the petitioner failed to avail the same. It is contended that the caste claim of the petitioner for verification was referred to the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide communication dt. 4.11.1994. The petitioner appeared before the Committee on 19.3.1995 and also filled in the questionnaire. The report of the Police Vigilance Cell was received by the Committee on 31.3.1999. The Committee forwarded the copy of the Police Vigilance Cell Report along with notice dt. 7.4.1999 whereby the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation and was asked to appear before the Committee on 23.4.1999. Since the petitioner did not submit any explanation nor appeared before the Committee on 23.4.1999, the Caste Scrutiny Committee issued second notice dt. 19.6.1999 to the employer of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee on 29.6.1999. However, even on that day, the petitioner failed to appear before the Committee. The Caste Scrutiny Committee again issued notice dt. 10.9.1999 addressed to the employer of the petitioner whereby the petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee on 29.9.1999. Since the petitioner failed to appear even on 29.9.1999, the Committee was left with no other alternative but to consider the caste claim of the petitioner on its own merits and on the 3 basis of the documents collected by the Police Vigilance Cell. Mr.Patil, Counsel for the Committee has submitted that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has considered the documents of the father and uncle of the petitioner which were the Admission Register extracts issued by the Head Master Primary School, Belona. In those documents, the caste of father and uncle of the petitioner was mentioned as 'Koshti'. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, therefore, on the basis thereof as well as considering other aspects of the matter, invalidated the caste claim of the petitioner vide order dt. 12.10.1999 which is impugned in the petition. The Caste Scrutiny Committee has further contended that the petition also suffers from delay and laches since it is filed in the year 2007 when the order was passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in the year 1999. Mr. Patil, counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee also contended that copy of the order dt. 12.10.1999 was forwarded to the employer along with communication dt. 5.11.1999 and the Committee has received acknowledgment of service of order on the employer of the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, in the meantime, the petitioner was appointed vide order dt. 28.11.1995 as an Agriculture Officer in Zilla Parishad, Nashik. Mr. Patil, Counsel for the Committee states that since the petitioner suppressed the fact that the claim of the petitioner was already forwarded to the Caste Scrutiny Committee, the Zilla Parishad once again forwarded the caste 4 claim of the petitioner for verification to the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide proposal dt. 27.9.2006. Since the caste claim of the petitioner was already considered and was invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide order dt. 12.10.1999, the Caste Scrutiny Committee vide communication dt. 30.7.1007 informed the Zilla Parishad, Nashik that the caste claim of the petitioner has already been invalidated. Counsel for the petitioner though has disputed some of the facts referred to hereinabove, however, it is very difficult for us to ignore the above referred facts placed before us by Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Caste Scrutiny Committee which is based on the record of the Caste Scrutiny Committee. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner was given ample opportunity by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, however, the petitioner failed to avail the same and therefore, in our view, it is not now open for him to canvass the grievance on the ground that the Caste Scrutiny Committee violated the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner did appear before the Caste Scrutiny Committee on 19.3.1995 and filled in the questionnaire. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner was well aware of the verification proceedings which were going on before the Committee in the year 1995 itself and therefore, it was in cumbent on the petitioner to keep the track of the proceedings. We also cannot ignore the fact that when the petitioner 5 sought appointment in the Zilla Parishad, Nasik, he suppressed the fact that his caste claim was already referred to the Committee by the earlier employer and misled the Zilla Parishad in this regard, who once again forwarded the caste claim of the petitioner to the Caste Scrutiny Committee for verification. In view of these circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to show indulgence. The petition suffers from lack of merits, hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj