Remanded

Kum Pallai Vasudev Baviska v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Member Secretary and Anr.

Bombay HC3 May 2012WP/3103/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging the quashing of ST certificate claims. The High Court held that the Committee failed to follow prescribed procedure by not allowing time for reply to a Vigilance report. The order was quashed and the matter remanded for final hearing with no further inquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20th March 2010 was quashed. The matter was remanded to the Committee for final hearing with directions to dispose within specific timelines.

Kum Pallai Vasudev Baviska Vs Scheduled… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Writ Petition No.3103 of 2010

¶4

*	Pallavi D/o Vasudev Baviskar, Age 28 years, Occupation : Lecturer, R/o Plot No.21, Yashwant Nagar, Behind Municipal Colony, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.	.. Petitioner.
	Versus
1)	Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar, Through its Member Secretary.
2)	Progressive Education Society's Modern College of Engineering 1186A, Shivajinagar, Off. J.M. Road, Pune 411 005 Through its Principal.	.. Respondents.

¶5

Shri. S.S. Phatale, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. A.R. Salve, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶6

With

¶7

Writ Petition No.3108 of 2010

¶8

Yogesh s/o Vasudev Baviskar, Age 28 years, Occupation : Lecturer, R/o Plot No.21,

¶9

2 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶10

Yashwant Nagar, Behind Municipal Colony, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. .. Petitioner.

¶11

Versus

¶12

1. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar, Through its Member Secretary.

¶13

1. Yeshwantrao Chavan College of Engineering Wanadongri, Hingna Road, Nagpur, Through its Principal. .. Respondents.

¶14

Shri. S.S. Phatale, Advocate for petitioner.

¶15

Shri. A.R. Salve, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶16

CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE 3^rd MAY 2012

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Naresh H Patil, J.):

¶18

1. Heard.

¶19

Rule returnable forthwith. By consent heard finally.

¶20

3 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶21

The petitioners are related inter se as brother and sister, according to the counsel. They claim to be belonging to Tokre Koli. Their caste claim was verified by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar and by order dated 20^th March 2010 invalidated the tribe claim of both the petitioners.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is violation of Rule 12(8) of the Maharashtra Scheduled Tribes (Regulation of Issuance and Verification of) Certificate Rules, 2003. 15 days time was not provided by the Committee for submitting reply to the Vigilance Cell report. According to the petitioners, notice was issued on 6^th January 2010 and the petitioners were asked to appear on 13^th January 2010. The petitioners appeared before the Committee on 13^th January 2010 and asked for further time to file reply to the Vigilance Cell report. According to the petitioners the matter was closed and posted for order on 27^th January 2010 without hearing the petitioners. The counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned order requires to be quashed and set aside.

¶23

4 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the Committee produced before us the original record. The counsel submits that the petitioners were heard on merits. Though on their request reply to the Vigilance Cell report was filed later on, the matter was decided after hearing the parties.

¶25

We have perused the record. We have perused the endorsements made in the Roznama on dated 5^th January 2010, 13^th January 2010, 27^th January 2010 and 20^th March 2010. According to the endorsements, the petitioners appeared before the Committee on 13^th January 2010 and they were heard. On the request of the petitioners, time was granted to file reply to the Vigilance Cell report. The reply was filed by the petitioners before the Committee on 25^th January 2010. On 27^th January 2010 matter was closed for orders and the impugned order came to be passed on 20^th March 2010.

¶26

The Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee should be aware that hearing in such matters shall take place after all the necessary stages contemplated under

¶27

5 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶28

law in respect of conducting hearing are complete. It is possible that in some cases there may not be deliberate lapse in getting reply to the Vigilance Cell report within stipulated time. In the facts of the case, according to the endorsements made in the Roznama of the original record, we find that the petitioners were heard on merits and later on permitted to file reply to the Vigilance Cell report and after the reply was filed the matter was closed for order. Such a procedure is not acceptable in law. Though technical but the Committee has given scope for the petitioners to raise a ground in respect of procedure which was followed by the Committee in deciding the tribe claim of the petitioners.

¶29

Henceforth the Committee shall be vigilant in such matters so that unnecessary litigation is avoided on such ground.

¶30

In view of the record placed before us we find it appropriate that a fresh opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioners by the Committee and thereafter the matter is decided on its own merits.

¶31

6 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶32

The order dated 20^th March 2010 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Region, Nandurbar, is quashed and set aside. The matter of both the petitioners is remanded back to the Committee.

¶33

The Committee shall hear the petitioners on the available record and material placed before the Committee. It is directed that no further inquiry or record be permitted to be placed before the Committee. The matter is remanded only for the purpose of final arguments by the petitioners.

¶34

The petitioners shall appear before the Committee on 14^th May 2012 at 11.00 a.m. The Committee is directed to dispose of these two matters finally by 25^th June 2012. The petitioners undertake to appear before the Committee on the given date and cooperate in final disposal of the matter, in absence thereof the Committee to proceed to pass final oder on the available record.

¶35

7 W.P. 3103 & 3108 of 2010

¶36

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No

¶37

order as to costs. Authenticated copy of the order is permitted.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/- (S.B. DESHMUKH, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)

¶39

rsl

Kum Pallai Vasudev Baviska v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Member Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kum Pallai Vasudev Baviska v. Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee Nandurbar through Member Secretary and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The President, Shankarrao Gaikwad Gramin Education Soc. and Ors. Vs Gorakshnath Ganpat Dherange

Gaurav Ashokrao Marathe Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Ku Rajashri Suresh Gudhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S Ramrajaram Katurwar through Gpa Govind Anandrao Katruwar Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Sunita Nivrutti Patare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Navnath Nagargoje Vs the State of Mah and Ors.