1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3480 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4366 OF 2010 Keshav s/o Manik Kore, Age-28 years, Occu:Service, R/o-Sai Shradha, Padmanagar, Near Padmawati Mandir, Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Through its Vice Chairman, Kashmira Sadan, Station Road, Aurangabad, 2) Zilla Parishad, Latur, Through its Chief Executive Officer, 3) Panchayat Samiti Ausa, Dist-Latur, Through its Block Development Officer. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.S.M. Kulkarni Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.U.S. Malte, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri.P.R. Tandale Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. The Petitioner claims to be belonging to "Mahadeo Koli". Caste claim of the Petitioner was verified by the Committee and by order dated 14th March 2007, the Committee invalidated the caste claim of the Petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner inter- alia submits that the first vigilance cell report was called by the Committee in the year 2003 and the second vigilance cell report was received in the year 2005. The Petitioner did not get any 3 intimation in respect of submission of his reply to the second vigilance cell report. The counsel submits that he wants to lead additional evidence now. By way of Civil Application the Petitioner has brought on record another genealogy under which, one of the cousin brother of the Petitioner, Ganpat More got validity certificate. 4. Learned counsel for the Committee submitted that the Petitioner shall not be now permitted to lead additional evidence, as the Petitioner has not at all submitted the genealogy before the Committee. The counsel submits that the Petitioner was intimated about the second vigilance cell report and was informed to file reply, by sending communication to the employer i.e. Panchayat Samiti. The Counsel however, submits that the original record does not disclose as to whether the Petitioner received the intimation of the Committee. 5. Without entering into the rival claims of 4 the parties, we are convinced that the Petitioner was not served with the notice in respect of the second vigilance cell report. That has caused prejudice to the Petitioner. We find that the Petitioner is entitled to produce the genealogy and the additional evidence, if any. In case such evidence is produced, the Committee is entitled to verify the evidence and the claim put-up on such evidence. 6. In the facts of the case, we observe that the Committee shall hear the Petitioner, consider the record including the additional material placed and thereafter decide the caste claim of the Petitioner, in accordance with law. For the said purpose, we are inclined to remand the matter back to the Committee. 7. The impugned order dated 14th March, 2007 passed by the Committee is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Committee. The Petitioner shall appear before the Committee on 5 12th April, 2010 at 11.00 a.m. 8. Rule is made absolute on the terms indicated above. All issues are kept open. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 9. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition itself, Civil Application is also disposed of. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR10/wp3480.07