Allowed

Suraj Fulchand Balvant v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad

Bombay HC25 Nov 2010WP/3457/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order invalidating his Scheduled Tribe claim due to non-supply of a vigilance cell report. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the order, and remanded the matter to the committee to decide afresh after furnishing the report.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13th August, 2004 quashed and set aside; matter remanded to respondent Committee to decide afresh after supplying vigilance cell report within 3 months of petitioner's appearance.

Suraj Fulchand Balvant Vs Scheduled Tribe… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3457 of 2010

¶4

Suraj Fulchand Balvant, Age 33 years, Occ. Nil R/o, Murud, Shivaji Nagar, Taluka and Dist. Latur.

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad through its Member Secretary.

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr. M.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Phatake, Advocate for respondent.

¶10

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE,JJ. DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2010.

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI, J] :

¶12

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶13

2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the respondent Committee, dated 13^th August, 2004, thereby invalidating the claim of the petitioner.

¶14

3] The limited ground, on which the petitioner relies is that

¶15

¶16

though under the Rules, it is necessary that a copy of the report of the Vigilance Cell should be furnished to the petitioner, the same has not been furnished. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court, in W.P. No. 8374 of 2006, “ Sudhakar More Vs. Scheduled Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee”, to which one of us ( Justice R.M. Borde) is a party.

¶17

4] Shri Phatke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner has participated in the proceedings and as such, has waived the right to get a copy of the vigilance cell. He further opposes the petition on the ground of delay and laches.

¶18

5] We have considered the material before us. In so far as the delay and laches are concerned, reliance placed by the learned counsel on para.7 of the judgment (cited supra) is well placed. We find that the facts in the present case are almost identical with the case cited supra and in that view of the matter, we are not inclined to non-suit the petitioner on the ground of delay and laches.

¶19

6] We have perused the record. There is no material on record to show that a copy of the vigilance cell report was in fact served upon the petitioner. In order to avoid any doubt, it was incumbent upon the respondent to have served a copy of the same by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. There is no acknowledgment receipt on record to show that the petitioner has received a copy of the vigilance cell report.

¶20

¶21

7] In that view of the matter, we allow the petition. The impugned order dated 13^th August, 2004 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent Committee for deciding it afresh in accordance law, from the stage of supply of copy of vigilance cell report. Petitioner to appear before the Committee on 20^th December, 2010. As such, the requirement of formal notice shall stand waived. On that day, the committee shall supply a copy of the vigilance cell report to the petitioner and thereafter decide the claim of the petitioner, within a period of 3 months from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the committee. We clarity that until the respondent committee decides the claim of the petitioner afresh, the petitioner would not be entitled to any benefit of belonging to Scheduled Tribe.

¶22

Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.

¶23

[R.M. BORDE,J.]

¶24

[B.R. GAVAI,J.]

¶25

grt/wp

Suraj Fulchand Balvant v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Fulchand Balvant v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate, Scrutiny Committee, Aurangabad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S K N P Indutries through Its Proprietor Kundan Shaligram Patil Vs Central Bank of India through Authorized Officer/Regional Manager Jalgaon

Digambar Vyanktrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Roshan Singh Sinsinwar Vs Union Govrnment of India and Ors.

Shivraj Industries through Its Proprietor Dhanjibhai Nanjibhai Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Govind Namdeo Avchar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Machindra Suryabhan Nishane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.