1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2007 * Shakuntala w/o Bhagwan Mudiraj, Age 24 years, Occupation : Household and elected Member of Municipal Council Umri, R/o Umri, Taluka Umri, District Nanded. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Collector, Collector Office Nanded, District Nanded. 3) The Sub Divisional Officer, Nanded, District Nanded. 4) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Through its Member Secretary, Kashmira Building, Employment Exchange Campus, Central Bus Stand Road, Aurangabad. 5) The Chief Officer, Municipal Council Umri, Taluka Umri, District Nanded. ... Respondents. 2 ------- Shri. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 and 3. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondents Nos.2 and 4. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 22nd JUNE 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3) By a communication dated 11-1-2007 the Scrutiny Committee forwarded a report of Home enquiry to the petitioner and asked the 3 petitioner to submit her say on the report. Against the home enquiry report the petitioner filed an application on 17-1-2007 stating that the report was not accepted by her. From the original file produced before us we find that the Committee issued a telegram to the petitioner on 16-1-2007 that the matter was listed for hearing on 18-1-2007 at 10.00 a.m. The petitioner stated that she has not received that telegram. The petitioner remained absent on 18-1-2007. Thereafter the committee passed the impugned order on 25-1-2007 4) Prima facie we find that, the petitioner ought to have been heard properly by the Committee. The original record produced before us does not inspire confidence that the petitioner was properly intimated regarding the date of hearing. The explanation of the petitioner for remaining absent on the date – 18-1-2007 is required to be accepted by this Court. The petitioner is, therefore, required to 4 be heard again by the Committee. The petitioner is entitled to file her reply to the Vigilance Cell report, if she desires and after hearing the petitioner on the available evidence, the Committee shall have to pass orders afresh on its own merits. 5) The order dated 25-1-2007 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Scrutiny Committee Aurangabad Division Aurangabad is quashed and set side and the matter is remanded back to the Committee. The petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 26th June 2009 and file her reply to the Vigilance Cell report within ten days thereafter, if she desires. The Committee shall thereafter list the matter for hearing of the petitioner within two weeks and after hearing the petitioner dispose of the matter by passing reasoned order within four weeks thereafter on its own merits. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 5 6) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case the seat of the petitioner as Councillor of the Umri Municipal Council is not notified as a vacant seat, the said seat be not notified as vacant by the authorities till the Committee passes final orders. 7) The authorities shall not notify the seat of the petitioner as vacant, if it is not already notified so, till the Committee passes final orders according to the schedule prescribed by us as above. 8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Authenticated copy be given to the counsel for the parties as per rules. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.1014.07