1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4560 OF 2007 Kum. Varsha d/o Mahadu Wagh, age 22 years, occup. service, r/of Hanuman Nagar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Kashmira Bhavan, Station Road, through its Chairman/Director. 3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. Respondents ------ Shri Anil.S. Golegaonkar,Advocate,for petitioner. Shri V.D. Rakh,Asstt. Govt.Pleader for Resp. No.1. Shri R.P. Phatke, Advocate, for Respondent No. 2. Coram:Naresh H. Patil & Shrihari P. Davare, JJ. Judgment reserved on : November 23, 2010 Judgment pronounced on : December 01, 2010 Judgment (Per: Shrihari P. Davare, J.) 01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties and taken up for final hearing at the admission stage itself. 2 02. By the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed that; "A. To grant Rule and allow this petition. (B). To quash and set aside the order of Committee dt. 17/3/2007 and declare that petitioner belongs to Malhar Koli Scheduled Tribe, by issuing appropriate writ, order or directives, as the case may be. (C). To quash and set aside impugned order of Committee dt.17/3/2007 & remand matter to Committee, and direct Committee to decide claim as per the guidelines laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, in Kum. Madhuri Patil's Case [AIR 1995 SC 94] and [{1997} (5) SCC 437], by issuing appropriate writ, order or directives, as the case may be." 03. The petitioner claims to be belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe and contends that Respondent No.3-The Sub Divisional Officer, Sillod, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad, has issued caste certificate in her favour to that effect, on 31.5.2001 which is produced at Exhibit B (page 32). The petitioner also contends that the said caste certificate was referred to Respondent No.2-The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Verification Committee, for verification, in the year 2005-06. Accordingly, it is the contention of the petitioner that the said committee conducted enquiry through vigilance cell which submitted its report on 25.8.2006. Thereafter, copy of the said report of the vigilance cell was 3 served upon the petitioner, by letter dated 22.11.2006, calling upon her to put up her say/explanation to the said report within fifteen days. Moreover, by letter dated 23.11.2006, Respondent No.2-Committee issued another letter to the petitioner asking her to appear for oral interview before the committee on 30.11.2006. Accordingly, oral interview of the petitioner was conducted by the Respondent No.2- committee on 30.11.2006 and thereafter the Committee passed an order on 17.3.2007, and thereby rejected the social status claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order dated 17.3.2007 passed by Respondent No.2-Committee, the petitioner has filed present petition impugning the said order. 04. On the aforesaid background, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that by letter dated 22.11.2006, report of the vigilance cell dated 25.8.2006 was served upon the petitioner, giving her two weeks time to submit her reply/explanation to the said report. However, before she could collect the documents and submit her reply to the report of the vigilance cell, another letter dated 23.11.2006 was issued by Respondent No.2-Committee to the petitioner calling up her to appear for personal hearing before the said committee, on 30.11.2006. Accordingly, petitioner appeared before the said committee on that day, but on account of insufficient time granted, she could not collect relevant documents to reply the contra points raised in the said report of the vigilance cell. The petitioner contens that Respondent No.2- 4 Committe did not give her adequate and reasonable time of two weeks which was mentioned in letter dated 22.11.2006 and, therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that without giving sufficient time to file reply, she was called upon to appear before the Committee for oral interview on 30.11.2006 i.e. just within seven days from the date of despatch of the said letter which appears to be material deviation on the part of the Scrutiny Committee and thus affects its entire decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that Respondent No.2-Committee failed to follow the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 12 [5] and [6] in the case of Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, AIR 1995 SC 96, and hence, urged that the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 be quashed and set aside and the matter be remanded back to Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee for conducting hearing afresh, after mandatory compliance and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner, as required by law. 05. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further canvassed that Respondent No.2-Committee has issued validity certificate on 29.12.2009 to petitioner's blood relatives, more particularly to Ganesh Govindrao, who is her cousin, validating his caste claim as Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner has also produced certificate of validity of caste, genealogy and affidavit of said Ganesh Wagh at Exhibit H-1. Moreover, the petitioner has also submitted that Respondent No.2- 5 Committee has issued certificate validating caste Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe to her another cousin Anil Ramrao Wagh, on 5.6.2006, and the copy of the said validity certificate, as also affidavit of Anil Wagh and genealogy, have been produced by the petitioner at Exhibit C. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner is also entitled to the certificate belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe and, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 passed by Respondent No.2-Committee deserves to be quashed and set aside. 06. Learned Counsel for Respondents opposed the present petition vehemently, and submitted that Respondent No.2-Committee has passed the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 after considering the report of vigilance cell, as well as after considering home enquiry and ethnic and affinity linkage of the petitioner, as enunciated in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra) and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove her affinity and ethnic linkage to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe and also failed to produce any valuable proof or record for the period prior to 1950 in support of her claim, and any validity certificate of her blood relatives with necessary affidavits, with family tree, and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe as claimed by her and accordingly, invalidated her said caste claim, rightly. 6 07. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that after issuance of notice dated 22.11.2006 by Respondent No.2- Committee, petitioner filed her reply immediately on 23/24.11.2006 and, therefore, there is no substance in her contention that two weeks mandatory period was not given to her to submit her reply/explanation, in view of issuance of letter dated 23.11.2006 calling upon her to appear before the committee for oral interview on 30.11.2006. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondents urged that there is no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner and hence, present petition deserves to be dismissed. 08. Learned counsel for the respondents also canvassed that the petitioner herself has produced xerox copy of service roll of her father namely, Mahadu Pandurang Wagh which indicates his social status as Koli and, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot claim her social status as Koli Malhar, as the social status of her father as Koli itself wipes out her claim as belonging to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe. 09. We have perused the contents of the petition, its annexures, as well as perused the file of Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee in respect of petitioner's case, and also considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and, at the outset, it is seen that Respondent No.2- Committee had sent a letter dated 22.11.2006 to the petitioner and 7 thereby served the report of the vigilance cell dated 25.8.2006 upon the petitioner and called on her to submit her reply/explanation thereon, within a period of fifteen days. Moreover, it is also seen that in pursuance of the letter dated 22.11.2006, the petitioner submitted her reply on 23/24.11.2006 to Respondent No.2-Committee. Hence, Respondent No.2-Committee issued letter on 23.11.2006 to the Petitioner, calling upon her to appear before the committee for personal hearing on 30.11.2006 and accordingly, the petitioner attended the said hearing. Thus, it is amply clear that in pursuance of the letter dated 22.11.2006 of the Respondent No.2-Committee, the petitioner filed her reply on 23/24.11.2006 to Respondent No.2-Committee, and in response to further letter issued by respondent No.2-Committee on 23.11.2006, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the committee for interview on 30.11.2006, she also attended the hearing on 30.11.2006 and hence, it is further amply clear that there is no substance in the grievance made by the petitioner that she was not given mandatory sufficient time of two weeks/fifteen days for submission of her reply/explanation to the report of the vigilance cell. Moreover, it is also crystal clear that the petitioner was given audience/ hearing on 30.11.2006 before passing the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 and, therefore, it is further clear that the principles of natural justice were followed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee. 8 10. Besides, it is material to note that the social status of a person flows from his father, and applying the said parameter in the instant case, if we consider the document No.14 submitted by the petitioner before Respondent No.2-Committee, i. e. the xerox copy of service roll of her father, the same discloses his social status as Koli and not Malhar Koli which clinches the issue in controversy and clarifies that since the petitioner's father belongs to Koli and not Malhar Koli, the social status of the petitioner is also required to be considered as Koli and not Malhar Koli, and the observations made by Respondent No.2 -Committee in that respect in the impugned order dated 17.3.2007 cannot be faulted with. Moreover, it also appears that Respondent No.2- Committee, while passing the impugned order dated 17.3.2007, has considered the enquiry report of the vigilance cell, remarks of Research Officer, Petitioner's say and information furnished by her and the points put forth by her during the course of personal hearing and other factors, such as, affinity and ethnic linkage of the petitioner towards Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe and arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove her affinity and ethnik linkage to Koli Malhar, as well as failed to produce valuable proof or the material record for the period prior to 1950 and concluded that the petitioner does not belong to Koli Malhar Scheduled Tribe and the said finding also cannot be faulted with. 11. Thus, having the comprehensive view of the matter, it appears that there is no perversity in the impugned order dated 9 17.3.2007 passed by Respondent No.2-Scrutiny Committee and the petitioner failed to make out any case to interfere in the impugned order and hence, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for therein invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and consequently, present petition deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result, present petition, being devoid of any merits and bearing no substance, stands dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged, accordingly. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.) pnd/wp4560.07