1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4387 OF 2010 Smt.Shaikh Chandbi w/o Shaikh Razzak Age 46 years, Occ-Member, Grampanchayat Murumkheda, Tq. Badnapur,Dist.Jalna. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Department of Social Walfare Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2] The Scheduled Caste Vimukta Jati, Nomadic Tribe Other Backward Classes, And Special Backward Category Classes, Divisional Scrutiny Committee No.1, Aurangabad Aurangabad. 3] The Collector, Collector Office, Jalna Dist.Jalna. .. RESPONDENTS [Notices & Copies for respondents No.1 to 3 to be served through Office of Government Pleader, High Court Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad]. .... 2 Shri Ajay Shinde,Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.K.Tambe,AGP for the respondents 1 to 3. .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE : 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER GAVAI,J.] : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard counsel for respective parties. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at admission stage. 2] By present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent no.2 Committee thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to Teli which is notified as Other Backward Class. It is the contention of the petitioner that when the matter was fixed for hearing on 15/9/2009, the petitioner was in a possession of certain documents pertaining to the year 2009 and therefore, she sought permission to place the said document on record and 3 also to examine the relatives in support of her claim. She further submitted that on that day, there was some quarrel between the members of the committee on one hand and some claimants on the other and as such, hearing could not take place on that day. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order which came to be passed on 29/1/2010 is against the principles of natural justice. 3] Shri Tambe, learned A.G.P. on the contrary submits that from the perusal of the order it would reveal that the matter was closed on 9/12/2009 and as such contention of the petitioner in that behalf is without any substance. 4] However, perusal of the record would reveal that the representation made by petitioner on 15/12/2009 was duly received by the committee on the said date. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept contention that the proceedings were closed on 9/12/2009. As a matter of fact, 4 order shows that it was issued on 29/1/2010. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause “B”. 5] The claim of the petitioner is directed to be reconsidered by respondent no.2 committee after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also of producing the necessary evidence in support of her claim. The committee is directed to decide the claim within 3 months from today. Petitioner is directed to remain present before the Committee on 11 th October 2010, as such, requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. 6] With these directions, Petition is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE 5 umg/wp4387-10