1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3035 OF 2007 Madhav s/o Hullappa Sheku, Age: 33 years, Occ: Service, Working as Primary Teacher, R/o. At Post. Dawangir, Tq. Degloor, Dist. Nanded, at present Govt. Primary Ashram Shala, behind Sharad Pawar High School, Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Nanded. 3. The Executive Magistrate, Degloor, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Project Office, Behind Raj Petrol Pump, Aurangabad. 5. The Head Master, Government Primary Ashram School, Behind Sharad Pawar School, Yeshwant Nagar, Osmanabad. 6. The Caste Verification Scrutiny Committee, Schedule Tribe, Bus Stand Road, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS 2 ... Shri. V.M. Humbe, Advocate for Petitioner. Smt. Yogita M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Shri. P.S. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 26TH JULY, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is a teacher. The petitioner claims that he belongs to "Mahadeo Koli", Scheduled Tribe. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, by judgment and order dated 27-04-2007 invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the said order. This petition is pending since 2007. 4. Shri. V.M. Humbe, the learned Counsel 3 appearing for the petitioner submits that the copy of the Vigilance Cell report is not served on the petitioner. The petitioner had attended the date of hearing but had orally made grievance to the Committee in respect of non service of the copy of the Vigilance Cell report, which was not served on the petitioner. The Counsel further submits that the petitioner has submitted other documentary evidence, which has not been taken into consideration. 5. Shri. P.S. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the Caste Scrutiny Committee produced original file before us. We have perused the same. Counsel submits that there is contra evidence against the petitioner. There is no record in the file in respect of service of the copy of Vigilance Cell report on the petitioner. Counsel further submits that appropriate opportunity is given to the petitioner. Non service of Vigilance Cell report would not prejudice the case of the petitioner. He further 4 submits that Vigilance Cell report speaks of interpolation in the record. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. In the facts of the case, we find that one more opportunity is required to be given to the petitioner, to put up his case. The copy of the Vigilance Cell report would also be served on the petitioner and thereafter, the Committee would consider the entire case and pass appropriate order. With this view, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Committee. 7. The impugned order dated 27-04-2007 passed by the Caste Scrutiny Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee. The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 4th August, 2010 at 11-00 a.m. The Committee shall hand over the copy of the Vigilance Cell report to the petitioner forthwith and grant two weeks time to file reply. The 5 petitioner would be entitled to lead evidence in his favour. The petitioner to co-operate with the Committee. In case, the petitioner does not co- operate with the Committee, the Committee is entitled to pass final order on the available material placed before them. The Committee is directed to pass final order and dispose of the tribe claim of the petitioner within three months from 4th August, 2010, on its own merits, in accordance with law. 8. We clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of the merits of the claim. 9. Rule made absolute, on the above terms. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/JUL10/wp3035.07