1 W.P. NO. 318/1999 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 318 OF 1999 Digamber S/o Lacchmanna Poradwar Age : 31 Yrs., Occ. Govt. Service, R/o : Kayal Building, Post Office Road, Hingoli Dist. Parbhani. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Govt. Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad. 2. The Committee for Scrutiny and verification of Tribe Claims M.S. Nasik. 3. The Controller Legal Metrology M.S. Mumbai. 4. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Biloli, Dist. Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.G.Patil, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2 W.P. NO. 318/1999 - ( J ) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 13/08/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER - B.R. GAVAI, J. ] 1. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 27/8/1998, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner of belonging to “ Mannerwarlu ” - Scheduled Tribe. 2. Mr. Talekar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was interviewed by 2 members of the Scrutiny Committee and the order is signed by 2 other members of the Committee. He submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil V/s Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development & Others – reported in AIR 1995 – SC – 94, it is necessary that the Committee which decides the tribal claim of a person must consists of 3 members. 3. The petition will have to be allowed on the short ground. 4. It is settled principle of natural justice that a person who hears the matter, must decide the same. In the present case, the specific averment made by the petitioner that the 2 members who had signed the 3 W.P. NO. 318/1999 - ( J ) orders were not one who had heard the petition. This averment has gone unchallenged. 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. The another ground on which the petitioner relies is also very vital. The Apex Court in the case of Kum. Madhuri Patil ( supra ) has held that the State should have different Committees in different parts of the State consisting of 5 members and Coram of 3 members is necessary to decide the particular claim. 7. In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. 8. The matter is remitted back to the respondent – Committee for deciding the claim of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner to appear before the Committee on 30/8/2010 and the claim of the petitioner would be decided within the period of one year therefrom. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/ WP 318.1999