1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7548 OF 2006 * Deelip S/o Govinda Sonawane, Age 44 years, Occupation : Service, Clerk in the office of the Chief Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Dhule, R/o Kanad Apartment, Room No.9, Pramodnagar, Sector 2, Deopur, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2) The Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nasik Division, Nasik. 3) The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Jalgaon Division, Jalgaon. 4) The Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims, Nandurbar. ... Respondents. ------- 2 Shri. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondents Nos.1 and 3. Shri. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for respondents Nos.2 and 4. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE: 22nd JUNE 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per NARESH H PATIL, J.): 1) Heard. 2) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of the learned counsel for the parties the matter is taken up for final hearing. 3) It is unfortunate that this matter is required to be remanded for the second time to the Scrutiny Committee. First time the matter was remanded as per the oder passed in Writ Petition No.4447 of 1995. This repeated remand of 3 the matter reflects otherwise on the functioning of the quasi judicial body and consumes valuable time of the Courts. 4) The petitioner was interviewed by the Committee on 17-9-2004, according to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel Shri. M.S. Deshmukh on petitioner’s request the matter was adjourned as the petitioner wanted to produce some documents on record. The learned counsel Shri. S.R. Barlinge appearing for the petitioner submits that with the Inward Clerk in the office of the Committee the petitioner had produced copies of 7/12 extract and two validity certificates of his relations. But the Committee while passing order on 19-6-2006 did not refer to these documents. Instead, it was stated that no such record was filed. 5) This observation of the Committee reflects non application of mind to the evidence produced by the petitioner on record. It is 4 further surprising to note that the petitioner was interviewed in the year 2004 but the Committee preferred to pass final order after 2 years i.e. in the year 2006. We do not appreciate this method of the functioning of the Committee. After hearing the matter final orders would be passed as early as possible, within a reasonable time frame. 6) We, therefore, are constrained to remand this matter again to the Committee. The Committee – respondent No.4 would hear the petitioner, consider all the documents produced earlier by the petitioner and thereafter pass final orders. No further enquiry or production of evidence, documents in any shape shall be permitted to be produced on record. 7) The order dated 19-8-2006 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny committee Nasik is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 – The 5 Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims Nandurbar. The petitioner shall appear before the Nandurbar Committee on 26th June 2009 at 11.00 a.m. If the petitioner appears the Committee shall dispose of the matter by passing final orders strictly in accordance with law within six weeks from 26-6-2009. If the petitioner fails to appear the Committee shall pass order on the basis of available record without adjourning the matter for the petitioner. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. 8) Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. Authenticated copy be given to the counsel for the parties as per rules. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.7548.06