rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2007 Yogesh Mahadeo Gavali ] Age - 27 years, ] Residing at Diksal Post Bhigwan ] .. Petitioner Tal.-Indapur, District - Pune. ] V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra ] Through its Secretary, ] Tribal Development Department ] Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32. ] ] 2. Scheduled Tribe Certificate ] Scrutiny Committee, Pune ] Division, Pune through its Member- ] ..Respondents Secretary, having its office at 28 ] Pune - 411 001. ] ] 3. Sub Divisional Officer, ] Baramati Sub Division, ] Baramati District - Pune. ] Mr.V.A. Munave i/b. R.K.Mendadkar for the Petitioner Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. Mr.R.D.Kandekar, Research Officer, Scheduled Caste Scrutiny Committee, Pune Region,Pune present in person. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2008. DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.):- ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.):- ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.B.Mhase,J.):- . Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. 2. By way of these petitions the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by Respondent No.2 the Scrutiny committee on 10th May, 2007 in case No.TCSC/EDN/Pune-25/05. The Petitioner claims to be 2 belonging to Thakar, Scheduled Tribes. There are several issues involving in this issue. However, we find that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is bias and suffering from illegalities because the principle of natural justice has not been followed by the Scrutiny Committee. 3. The case of the Petitioner applied to the Respondent No.2 Scrutiny Committee for verification of his Caste Certificate. The Respondent No.2 thereafter caused an inquiry through Vigilance Cell who submitted its report to Respondent No.2. The copy of the said report was forwarded to the Petitioner alongwith a letter dated 19th May, 2006. The Petitioner admitted to have received the said report. But, he submitted letter dated 22nd June, 2006 wherein he requested to furnish the documents, which were submitted by the Vigilance Cell to the Committee, to him to file his reply. 4. Again the Petitioner was called upon by the Committee for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner by his letter dated 20th March, 2006 informed the Respondent No.2 that his application for getting the documents is pending before the committee as the Scrutiny Committee has not given the same. Therefore, he could not attend the personal hearing and he may be given more time. 3 5. Thus, it appears from the record and the Judgment and order of the Committee that repeatedly the Petitioner requested the Respondent No.2 for getting the documents annexed to the Vigilance Cell report. However, the Committee has given the Vigilance Cell report but the documents annexed thereto were not given to him. 6. We find that, the order of the Scrutiny Committee is bad in law and therefore the said order dated 10th May, 2007 is quashed and set aside. In view of this, we remit the matter to the Vigilance Cell Committee with direction to give necessary documents to the Petitioner so that the Petitioner can make out his case. After receiving the said documents, the Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2 Committee for personal hearing and Respondent No.2 to decide the matter after giving hearing of this matter to the Petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Since, the Research Officer of the Committee is present in the Court, the rule is made absolute in above terms. (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE,J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)