1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3898 OF 2010 Rajenddrasingh Pundliksingh Sisodiya } Age : 51 Years, Occ. Service, } Presently working as Superintending } Engineer (Civil), the City & Industrial } Development Corporation of Maharashtra } CIDCO at Aurangabad } R/o : Plot No. 18/8,Sector C/5, } Town Centre, CIDCO, New Aurangabad, } District : Aurangabad. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra } Through Secretary, } Tribal Development Department, } Mantralaya, Mumbai. } 2. The Committee for scrutiny and } Verification of Tribe Claims, } Nandurbar Division, } Nandurbar. } 3. The City and Industrial Development } Corporation of Maharashtra } (CIDCO), Through its Managing } Director, CIDCO Bhavan, CBO } Belapur, New Mumbai. } .... RESPONDENTS 2 Mr. S.R.Barlinge,, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. Mr. P.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Mr. A.S.Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no. 3. CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 29/04/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 20/4/2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Committee thereby invalidating the tribe claim of the petitioner/applicant for want of prosecution. The petitioner /applicant was issued certificate as belonging to Thakur – Scheduled Tribe by the competent authority. 3. The said certificate was referred to the Scrutiny Committee. The same was invalidated on 12/12/1991. The petitioner had challenged the said Judgment in Writ Petition No. 830 of 1992. This Court vide its Judgment and Order dated 14/2/2003 set aside the Judgment of Scrutiny Committee and remanded the matter back 3 to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision on merits. The claim of the petitioner for validation was initially with the Scurtiny Committee at Nashik and thereafter transferred to the Committee at Nandurbar i.e. respondent no. 2 in the year 2008. According to the petitioner, he had given notice to the respondent no. 2 but he did not receive any response. According to the petitioner, he never received any communication from the respondent no. 2 – Committee for appearance. 4. The perusal of the order impugned in this petition clearly shows that the Committee has not dealt with the merits of the matter , but has dismissed proceedings for want of prosecution on the count that the petitioner did not appear. It would be appropriate to reproduce para no. 12 of the said Judgment, which reads as under : “ Hence for all the aforesaid reason the case of the applicant is prima facie liable prosecution by way of keeping the merits open and permitting the applicant to apply to this Committee in a prescribed manner “”. 5. The petitioner has brought to our notice that ex-facie the observations of the Committee are erroneous. The Committee has observed that the Scrutiny Committee at Nashik had called the petitioner to remain present for personal hearing on 16/1/1995 and 20/5/1995. But it is apparant that on the said date, no claim was 4 pending with the Nashik Committee as in the year 1991, the Scrutiny Committee, Nashik had invalidated the tribe claim of the petitioner, against which the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition bearing No. 830 of 1992 and the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 14/07/2003 had partly allowed the Writ Petition and had remanded the matter back to the Scrutiny Committee for fresh decision on merits. As such these observations of the Committee that the petitioner was called for personal hearing on 16/1/1995 and 20/5/1995 are per-se incorrect and against the record. The matter was transferred to the respondent no. 2 – Committee on 17/12/2008. From the Judgment, it nowhere transpires that the petitioner at any material point of time thereafter was given intimation of any date of hearing. 6. Respondent no. 2 – Committee could not have dismissed the matter for non prosecution but it has to decide the same on its merits. On the contrary, respondent no. 2 has dismissed application of the petitioner for want of prosecution and has kept all the points open and has also permitted the applicant to apply to the Committee in the prescribed manner. Such an exercise was unwarranted on the part of respondent no. 2 – Committee. The Committee ought to have issued notice to the petitioner intimating him the date of hearing . Undisputedly, after the matter was transferred to the respondent no. 2 – Committee, no notice was issued to the petitioner about any date of hearing. 5 7. In the light of the above, we are not dilating on the merits of the matter but are relegating the petitioner to respondent no. 2 – Committee with direction to respondent no. 2 to decide the proceedings afresh on its own merits, in accordance with law and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his stand. 8. In view of the aforesaid premise, the impugned Judgment and Order dated 20/4/2010 passed by the respondent no. 2 – Committee is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 2 – Committee for deciding it afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. We direct the petitioner to appear before respondent no. 2 – Committee on 4/6/2010 and the Committee shall decide the said proceedings within 4 months from 4/6/2010. 9. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 3898.10 ( J ) 6