1 wp7515.06 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7515 OF 2006 Keshav s/o Govindrao Ghante, Age: 39 years, Occ: Service as Lab Attendant, R/o. Phulari Building, Chakur, Tq. Chakur Dist. Latur. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. Mahatma Basweshwar Shikshan Sanstha, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur, Through its Secretary. 3. The Divisional Joint Commissioner, Higher Education, Nanded Division, Nanded, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. 4. The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad, Mahada Campus, Near Baba Petrol Pump, Aurangabad, Through it's Member Secretary. 5. The Taluka Executive Magistrate, Udgir, Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. R.R. Suryawanshi, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. D.R. Kale, AGP for respondent Nos.1,3 and 5. Mr. R.P. Phatke, Advocate for respondent No.4. ... 2 wp7515.06 CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally. The petition has been preferred against the order dated 30-09-2006 passed by respondent No. 4 - the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad ( For short, "the Scrutiny Committee"), by which the petitioner's tribe claim has been rejected. According to the petitioner, he is a 'Mahadev Koli' and therefore, entitled to the benefits available in law to Mahadev Kolis. 2. The petitioner's grievance is that his application for an adjournment was refused by the Scrutiny Committee without reason. According to him, the adjournment was necessary because he wanted to place on record certain documents, 3 wp7515.06 including the validity certificates issued in favour of his two paternal cousins Subhash Ghante and Bhimashankar Sidramappa Ghante, for the Scrutiny Committee to consider while deciding his tribe claim. The other grievance of the petitioner is that the vigilance cell report which has been accepted by the Scrutiny Committee mentions the names of some persons as his sisters and brothers although those persons are not related to him. According to him, only three persons i.e. Vasant Govind Koli, Vyankat Govind Koli and Balaji Ghante are his brothers. None of the other persons mentioned in the vigilance cell report have any relationship with him. 3. In our opinion, the Scrutiny Committee has committed an error by not granting an adjournment to the petitioner in order to justify his claim. The petitioner had produced certain documents alongwith his application for an adjournment. Besides these documents, the petitioner wanted to produce the validity 4 wp7515.06 certificates issued in the name of Subhash Ghante and Bhimashankar Sidramappa Ghante. In our opinion, the decision of the Scrutiny Committee would have to be set aside. It is based on the report of vigilance cell which takes into consideration the statements made by persons who are not the petitioner's siblings. This is a manifest error and has occurred because the vigilance cell based its findings on the school record of persons who were not related to the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Scrutiny Committee and remand the matter to the Scrutiny Committee for deciding it afresh. The vigilance inquiry will be undertaken again in accordance with law and the Committee shall decide the tribe claim of the petitioner only after taking into consideration the new report which the vigilance cell shall furnish. 5 wp7515.06 5. The Scrutiny Committee is directed to permit the petitioner to place on record any further documents as are required for establishing his tribe claim, including the validity certificates issued in favour of his relatives. 6. The Scrutiny Committee will decide the tribe claim of the petitioner within six months from today after affording him a personal hearing. Till then, no adverse action shall be taken against the petitioner on the ground that his tribe claim has been invalidated by the Scrutiny Committee. 7. We make it clear that merely because we have permitted the petitioner to produce further documents on record including the validity certificates of the persons who the petitioner claims are his relatives, we are not accepting his relationship with those persons. Indeed, it is for the Scrutiny Committee to decide whether those validity certificates should be accepted, on 6 wp7515.06 merits, while deciding the tribe claim of the petitioner. 8. Rule made absolute. sd/- sd/- [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] sut/Mar11/wp7515.06