1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4093 OF 2009 Smt.Saleemabi Abdul Mabood Qureshi Age-47 years, Occu-Agriculture and Household R/o.Qureshi Mohalla, Partur, Tq.Partur, Dist. Jalna PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The S.C., S.T., V.J., O.B.C. And S.B.C. Category Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The Municipal Council Partur Tq.Partur, Dist. Jalna, Through its Chief Officer. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, learned AGP for respondent no.1 Mr.B.L.Sagar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 Mr.Amol Gandhi, learned counsel for respondent no.3. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 18/08/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.V.Hardas, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner takes exception to an order dated 10/06/2009 passed by the respondent Scrutiny Committee invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner as belonging to “Kasab” O.B.C. The caste certificate of the petitioner came to be referred to the respondent Scrutiny Committee for verification. The petitioner relied upon the documents submitted by him for the purpose of establishing that the petitioner is belonging to “Kasab” O.B.C. The documents on which reliance was placed by the petitioner are reflected in the order of the respondent Scrutiny Committee as documents at Sr.No.1 to 11. At the outset, we may point out that the petitioner claimed to be belonging to “Kasab” caste, which is re- cognised as O.B.C., while the documents submitted by the petitioner pertains to his relatives in respect of whom the caste which is recorded as “Khatik” which is also re-cognized as O.B.C. Caste. The respondent Scrutiny Committee had referred the certificates of the petitioner to the Vigilance Cell and accordingly the report of the Vigilance Cell came to be submitted. Amongst the various grounds on which the claim of the petitioner came to be invalidated was the ground that the petitioner had not produced certificates prior to 31/10/1967. 3 3. Shri.V.D.Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner was asked to appear before the Committee on 09/06/2009 on which date the report of the Vigilance Cell was submitted, and on the same day, copy thereof was handed over to the petitioner, and thereafter the matter was heard on the next day i.e. on 10/06/2009 and consequently the petitioner was deprived of his valuable rights of submitting his reply to the report of Vigilance Cell. It is also urged before us that the Scrutiny Committee was in error in insisting on the production of documents prior to 30/10/1967 as the said caste “Kasab” came to be included by virtue of a Government Resolution dated 09/08/1995 and consequently the aforesaid instance was unwarranted. It is also urged by Shri.Salunkhe, learned counsel for the petitioner that the caste “Kasab” came to be included by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 09/08/1995 while the caste “Muslim Khatik” came to be included by virtue of the Government resolution dated 01/01/2001, and consequently the certificates issued to the relatives of the petitioner obviously showed the caste as “Khatik” while the certificate issued to the petitioner which was prior to 2001 showed the caste as “Kasab”. The learned counsel therefore on the aforesaid premise has urged before us to remit the matter back to the Committee for a decision afresh in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner of adducing evidence. 4. Shri.B.L.Sagar, learned counsel for the respondents urged before us that by virtue of the Government Resolution dated 4 09/08/1995, the caste “Kasab” came to be included vide entry at Sr.No.257 while as per Government Resolution dated 01/01/2001, the caste “Muslim Khatik” came to be included vide entry at Sr.No. 316. Since both the castes are different, they can not be said to be synonym of each other and consequently the petitioner who claimed to be belonging to “Kasab” has miserably failed in establishing that he belongs to “Kasab” caste as the petitioner has produced certificates of his relatives on record which showed that their caste was recorded as “Muslim Khatik/Khatik”. It is stated therefore that no nexus has been established by the petitioner viz-a-viz caste “Kasab” and the caste “Khatik”. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the findings recorded by the respondent Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner contends in his petition that copy of the report of Vigilance Cell was not provided to the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable rights of submitting reply. In any event there is nothing on record to indicate that a copy of the report of Vigilance Cell was provided to the petitioner. The petitioner obviously in these circumstances, has been deprived of his valuable rights of submitting reply to the report of Vigilance Cell. The question is whether a copy of the report had in fact been provided to the petitioner giving him an adequate opportunity of submitting his reply. The perusal of the impugned order clearly indicates that the report was received on 09/06/2009 and the hearing was fixed on 10/06/2009. As pointed out by us, 5 there is nothing to indicate that the copy of the report was served on the petitioner giving him an opportunity submitting of his reply. In fact, the report of this Vigilance Cell has not been found in favour of the petitioner by the respondent Scrutiny Committee, and therefore the claim has been invalidated as it has been found that the report of the Vigilance Cell is one of the ground for invalidating the caste claim of the petitioner. 6. Since the report was not provided to the petitioner as per the provisions of Law giving him an opportunity of submitting his reply to the adverse findings if any in its report, the petition deserves to be allowed on that limited score. Since we are incline to allow the petition and remit the matter back to the Committee giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file his reply to the report of Vigilance Cell. We refrain from expressing any opinion as far as the merits of the matter are concerned. 7. Accordingly this petition succeeds and the impugned order is hereby quash and set aside remitting the matter back to the Vigilance Cell for giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the report of Vigilance Cell. Since the petitioner claims that a copy of the report was not served on him, we direct that the Committee shall serve a copy of the report on the petitioner giving him an opportunity of submitting his reply. For that purpose we direct the petitioner to attend the respondent Scrutiny Committee on 05/09/2009 and expect that the copy of the report of Vigilance Cell would be served on 6 the petitioner, and thereafter the case would be fixed for filing of reply of the petitioner. The Committee, if the petitioner files his reply to the report of Vigilance Cell, shall hear the petitioner afresh and pass orders in accordance with Law within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of reply by the petitioner. 8. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/wp4093-09